Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Labour Statistics

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women living on Merseyside have been unemployed for longer than five years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): In October 1988, the latest available date, there were 15,626 men and 2,433 women in Merseyside who had been unemployed for more than five years.

Mr. Alton: In the light of those damning figures and the 98,419 people on Merseyside who are currently out of work, will the Minister promise that even if tomorrow's figures show some overall reduction in unemployment, there will be no question of complacency in areas such as Liverpool, where the Allerton road jobcentre in my constituency is advertising just 92 jobs in a city where about 24 people are chasing every vacancy? Does the Minister agree that it is vital to remove every possible barrier which might prevent people from seeking skills and training? Does he further agree that we should abolish the national insurance surcharge, which is too often a tax on jobs in areas of high unemployment? Does he also agree that it is quite wrong—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked three questions.

Mr. Lee: I will attempt to answer two of them. Of course the Government are not complacent about unemployment on Merseyside. Indeed, substantial amounts of Government money have been poured into Merseyside through a whole range of Government programmes. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that there has been a significant reduction in unemployment in his constituency, which has fallen by just over 21 per cent. in the past two years, and that unemployment is falling steadily in the Merseyside area. The hon. Gentleman may also recall that Liverpool city council's original attitude in not exactly welcoming employment training has not helped.

Mr. Wareing: Is that not a ridiculous end to the Minister's answer, when he knows full well that his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment have cut Liverpool's rate support grant so

often in the past? Instead of coming up with Mickey Mouse employment training schemes which do not even cover all the young people unemployed in my constituency, he should talk to people who really know the area and then get together with his right hon. and hon. Friends to do something about the infrastructure, such as the road and rail network. Is it not time that the Government paid as much attention to the social and economic infrastructure of Merseyside as they do to the Channel tunnel?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely churlish. The Government have pumped hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money into Merseyside, and in the past two years unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by 24·78 per cent.

Youth Training Scheme

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the safety of YTS trainees; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I repeat what I told the hon. Lady in the reply that I gave on 6 December, which is recorded in the Official Report at column 143— namely, that health and safety remains of paramount importance in YTS.
New developments currently in hand include the issue of a new health and safety training package aimed specifically at young persons and new advice for managing agents who monitor health and safety at work placements.

Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister not horrified at the rise in accidents involving YTS trainees? Can he tell the House how enabling young YTS trainees to work longer hours—to do night and shift work and to work for up to 53 hours per week—will improve health and safety for our young people?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady seems to be working on the assumption that the YTS accident rate has increased dramatically. She should know that that is not the position. The rate of accidents and fatalities involving YTS trainees is the same as that for young people working outside the scheme.
If the hon. Lady believes that she has conclusive evidence that altering and rationalising hours of work must inevitably lead to further accidents, it would be interesting to see that evidence. I must tell the hon. Lady that there is no indication from anywhere else that such evidence exists.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: While safety measures must be enforced for YTS trainees from that for everyone else, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of nitpicking by Labour Members who are jealous because YTS is working so well?

Mr. Nicholls: Nits will pick.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware that his answer sounds both smug and complacent? As the Government have presided over an increase of more than 100 per cent. in YTS accidents between 1984–88, is it not time that we had some real constructive action from the Minister—or is


he so insensitive to youngsters and to those on YTS courses that he is quite happy to see such carnage among young people?

Mr. Nicholls: In using words such as "smug" and "complacent", the hon. Gentleman merely illustrates that it is unwise to write one's supplementary question before hearing the answer to the main question. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that there has been a major increase in YTS accidents he and his hon. Friends should know that the bases on which accidents are recorded were changed in 1986. If one takes that into account— [interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should know about that by now—he has been told often enough. If one takes that change into account, the figures are remarkably stable. The hon. Gentleman should realise that fatalities are recorded on a different basis for YTS trainees as for employees. On that basis, the figures are stable. It is not complacent or smug to try to do away with some of the scare stories that Opposition Members are constantly putting around to terrify people off YTS.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to the safety of YTS trainees is proper training? My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work done by the construction industry training board in that respect. Does he agree that it is crucial that that board should remain in its present form with a statutory levy?

Mr. Nicholls: That does not arise from this question, but I agree with my hon. Friend thus far—training is obviously vital and any YTS provider must have approved training organisation status. One of the key ingredients of that status is that such providers have proper safety and training arrangements for the young people in their charge.

Job Creation

Mr. Boateng: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in the greater London region.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): In the year to September 1988 the work force in employment increased by 25,000 in greater London. The only available information about full and part-time employment in greater London is for women employees. Those figures are provisional and show an increase of 15,000 in women full-time employees and a decrease of 1,000 in women part-time employees.

Mr. Boateng: In the same period, some 65,000 disappeared off the unemployment benefit register. What has happened to the 40,000 or so people who can no longer be found? Have they disappeared into some kind of twilight zone of fake statistics? Will the Minister give resources to organisations such as Brent Asian Professionals Association, Operation Fullemploy and others trying to provide real training for real jobs? What does he intend to do to encourage employers to provide workplace experience for young people who are currently deprived of it?

Mr. Fowler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also continue to support, as I take his remarks to do, the employment training programme. The figures for

unemployment and employment are done on different bases. The labour force survey will show a more accurate picture of the growth in employment. That will be available in about a month. The hon. Gentleman should wait for that survey because he will find that some of his questions will be answered.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that unemployment in London has gone down so sharply. I am also sure that he will welcome and recognise the current estimate that there are about 150,000 vacancies in London and about 250,000 unemployed people. In other words, there are opportunities for people to take on work in London.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem in north-west London is not unemployment, but that there are not enough people to fill the vacancies? The Government have done a great deal already. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will continue to do as much as possible to find people to fill those vacancies and to train them?

Mr. Fowler: The figures that I gave show that there are about 150,000 vacancies in London. We estimate that 50,000—one third—of those vacancies do not require any previous training. The other vacancies require such training and it is for that reason that the employment training programme has been introduced. I am glad to tell the House that there are about 140,000 people on the employment training programme. That demonstrates its success and the big start that it has had despite opposition from Labour Members.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State clear up a mystery? He keeps referring to 150,000 vacancies, but when the long-term unemployed go for their restart interviews fewer than 1 per cent. of them get a job. How does the Secretary of State explain that? Is he aware that the 150,000 vacancies to which he referred when he answered questions a month ago no longer exist? They generally last only a couple of weeks and go primarily to people already in employment and switching jobs, or to those who have recently become unemployed. The people still unemployed since that answer a month ago are the long-term unemployed, largely because of employer prejudice against them. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to deal with that problem?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on several points. First, the London labour survey that we have published shows conclusively that there are many unfilled job vacancies in London. There is no doubt about that. No one in the employment sphere doubts that. Many of the people who are unemployed require training. That is what employment training is about. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would have some influence on his Front Bench colleagues and get them to support that programme.
With regard to restart programme outcomes, the hon. Gentleman will understand that after their restart interviews many people go into employment training or to job clubs, which is one of the surest ways of finding employment.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree with the assessment that in 1991 the London Docklands will have created 80,000 new jobs as a result of £4 billion in private investment? Can he tell the House how far that process has gone?

Mr. Fowler: Ther is no question at all that the development of the London Docklands will bring, and is already bringing, new jobs to London. It is a great commentary in defence of our policy there that an area that was previously very much running down has been revivified by private investment for the benefit of people in London and for jobs.

Mr. Strang: How is it that in the greater London region—the centre of the so-called jobs boom—in May 1979 when the Government took office unemployment was 110,000 but now, on the basis of the Government's new method of calculation, it is 250,000 and if we used the method of calculation suggested when Labour was in power it would be 340,000, which is an increase of 200 per cent? Is it not time for a little less euphoria from Ministers and a little more action to tackle unemployment, not least in areas such as Hackney and Peckham where it is more than 20 per cent.?

Mr. Fowler: There is neither euphoria nor complacency. Unemployment has fallen dramatically in this country in the past 18 months. The most distressing aspect is the Labour party's refusal to welcome the good news that many more people are in jobs. It is about time that the Labour party came up to date and started backing a programme for training long-term unemployed people or they will have no credibility whatever.

Loan Guarantee Scheme

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the loan guarantee scheme.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): The loan guarantee scheme will continue in operation and the maximum loan under it will increase from £75,000 to £100,000. Nearly 21,000 guarantees have been issued for a total of £680 million of loans since the LGS started.

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know how welcome is the great success of this scheme, especially the increase to 85 per cent. in the loan guarantee scheme for the inner city task force areas. Is my right hon. Friend also prepared to give an estimate of how much each job created under the scheme has cost since the start of the scheme?

Mr. Cope: We estimate that the net cost per person is about £450 per job, which compares extremely favourably with the other schemes that the Department operates.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that remarkable achievement is welcome to us all? Will he confirm that a substantial number of now large employers started under the loan guarantee scheme and that a great many of the firms that started under that scheme are still in business after three years?

Mr. Cope: Yes, the majority of firms which started under the loan guarantee scheme continue and are successful, although obviously not all of them. They include some of the great high street firms such as Sock Shop and Waterstone's the bookshop, which are constantly mentioned.

YTS

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the non-work content in YTS; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cope: We have no plans to increase the non-work content in YTS. The emphasis is increasingly moving towards achieving approved vocational qualifications by the most appropriate route rather than specifying particular routes.

Mr. Battle: Is not the reality that the non-work content is being decreased and the Government are watering down the original YTS requirements as set out in the new training initiative in 1981 by reneging on the 20-week on-the-job off-the-job training promise? Are not the Government using the scheme not for real and useful long-term training, as the Minister suggested earlier. but as a means of making out to us that the unemployment figures are falling?

Mr. Cope: On the contrary, we are introducing increased flexibility into the youth training scheme in cases where it can lead to approved national vocational qualifications. We have introduced the changes to increase the number of people who achieve qualifications on the scheme. That is why we are varying the mix.

Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that increasing the role of vocational qualifications in the youth training scheme is warmly welcomed by employers and would-be employers who recognise qualifications as an important achievement? Does he also recognise that the training standards advisory service within the Training Agency ensures that all managing agents are constantly improving the quality of their training, which matters more than simple duration?

Mr. Cope: Yes, we have for some time been emphasising the importance of the quality of training, through the work done by the training standards advisory service, among others, but quality and qualifications are also important to the young people.

Mr. Nellist: Would not a guarantee of stability, or better still an increase in the proportion of non-work training, for people on the youth training scheme also serve to reduce accidents which have grown from 69 fatal or major accidents per 100,000 trainees in 1984 to 143 in March 1988? Should not parents who send their sons and daughters on a youth training scheme in the morning be able to have confidence that they will return home at night with the same number of limbs as they had when they left?

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman should not try to frighten people in that way. In the first place, he is two questions late. Secondly, he will have heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), say that the reporting of accidents changed in 1986, as the hon. Gentleman should well know.

Strikes (Lost Working Days)

Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in (a) January 1979 and (b) January 1989; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: Nearly 3 million working days were lost through strikes in January 1979. The latest figure available for November 1988 shows that 175,000 working days were lost. Those figures show the very substantial improvement that has taken place in this country's industrial relations record in past 10 years.

Mr. Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the present position is an astonishing contrast with that of the 1970s and owes a great deal to the Government's step-by-step employment policies during that period? Can my right hon. Friend give further details about the average number of strikes in the 1970s compared with the figure for 1988?

Mr. Fowler: There is no question but that industrial relations in Britain have improved substantially. The Labour Government achieved in one month the number of days lost through strikes that now take a year to come by. That gives some idea of the vast improvement that has taken place. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that one reason for that is the reform of industrial relations law in Britain.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister aware that he talks a lot of claptrap about this? Can he give us for each year the figures for days lost through strikes compared with the number lost through industrial injury and unemployment? Is it not a fact that, year by year, the number of days lost through industrial injury and unemployment far exceeds the number lost through strike action, which leads one to question the Government's position when they produce venomous and vicious legislation against the trade unions but do nothing about industrial injury and very little about unemployment?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has just established beyond any doubt that he is the world expert in claptrap. In the year to November 1988 there were 746 stoppages. That compares with an average in the 1970s of 2,631. As for working days lost, in the 1970s the average was almost 13 million; today it is just under 4 million. The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously argue that that is not a very substantial improvement.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's record on improved industrial relations is most commendable, but that two further measures could be taken? First, he could pursue with renewed vigour the arrangement to set up more no-strike agreements, beginning with our prisons. Secondly, he could abolish the closed shop.

Mr. Fowler: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. The step-by-step process of reform of industrial relations is not complete and the job has not yet been finished. It is still the case that in some industries no one can get a job unless he has a trade union card. That represents a barrier to employment and, as my hon. Friend will know, it is something that we are reviewing urgently and on which I shall wish to make a statement in due course.

Demolition Sites (Fatalities)

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees have been killed on demolition sites in the past five years.

Mr. Nicholls: Between 1 January 1983 and 31 March 1987 the number of deaths associated with demolition activities of employees reported to the factory and agricultural inspectorate division of the Health and Safety Executive totalled 53. The provisional figure for deaths in the period 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988, the latest date for which information is available, is 13.

Mr. Rooker: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he accept that there can be a problem about employees and that in addition to the figures that he has given at least another 12 people per year are killed on demolition sites? One such is the case of Seamus Cleary, who was working on the demolition of the Ansell's brewery site in Birmingham for the notorious contractors, Doyle's. At the inquest the man's family and friends told the coroner that he was an employee, but Doyle's insisted that he was not. This is a serious issue to which I have drawn the Department's attention in the past. People on demolition sites ought to be clearly identified so that someone is accountable and responsible for their health and safety. Companies such as Doyle's should not be able to employ lump labour and then not take responsibility when tragedies of this kind occur.

Mr. Nicholls: I am not in a position to comment now on the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises. If he wishes to raise it with me in correspondence I will of course, look at it. Perhaps I could clear up one misconception under which the hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring. With regard to fatal accidents in construction, those who are non-employed but within the ambit of a construction site are also covered. The figures do not apply simply to those working on the site.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend nevertheless agree that these are very serious figures? Is he sure that every step has been taken by the Government to ensure that safety rules are observed on demolition sites in accordance with the strict letter of the law?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to express concern. The point that has to be made clear time and again is that neither the Government nor the HSE can act as the industry's safety officer. The prime responsibility in preventing accidents and fatalities must rest with the work force and the employers. The black spot construction report showed that 90 per cent. of deaths between 1981 and 1985 were preventable, 70 per cent. being preventable by positive management action. I am satisfied that the HSE and the Government are doing all that they can, but so long as even one death is occurring that effort must continue.

Job Creation

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment, and the number of jobs created in the United Kingdom, in the 12 months to September 1988.

Mr. Fowler: In the United Kingdom in the 12 months to September 1988, the level of unemployment fell by 526,400. Since then, there has been a further fall of 152,600. Provisional estimates of the work force in employment show that there has been a net increase of


402,000 in the 12 months to September 1988. But that last figure is subject to revision when the labour force survey is published.

Dr. Moonie: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many of the jobs gained have been full-time jobs, and how many part-time?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. Over the past 12 months about 55 per cent. of the jobs obtained have been full-time and about 45 per cent. part-time.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: If my right hon. Friend compares the people in the various age groups that have found employment, will it be found that those who are aged over 50 or disabled receive a proportionate number of jobs, or do they need special assistance?

Mr. Fowler: Both groups require special help, and in terms of the employment training programme, we are trying to provide it both for the over-50s and, particularly, for the disabled. That is a continuing element in our policy, and it will continue to be a priority.

Mr. Wallace: Of the 152,600 people who have come off the unemployment register since September 1988, how many are aged between 16 and 18 who have been unable to find a YTS place, and who are no longer entitled to receive income support? Does the growing number of young people so affected give the Secretary of State cause for concern? It appears that there is a gap in the training provision, which does not cater for people unable to find a YTS place.

Mr. Fowler: I am always prepared to consider individual cases of people who have been unable to find a YTS place. At present, there are 120,000 vacancies on the YTS programme in all the regions of the country. Our information is that all who have applied for a YTS place have been able to obtain one. If the hon. Gentleman gives me an example of where that has not occurred, I am prepared to investigate it.

Mr. Favell: A man of 50 obtaining a job can often give 15 years' service to his new-found employer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be advertisements stating, "No one aged under 50 need apply"?

Mr. Fowler: I wish to ensure that employment opportunities exist for people of all ages. Many people aged over 50 have the experience that enables them to take up new jobs, at a time when many more vacancies are occurring. I feel sure that employers will increasingly want to appoint older workers; that trend is already visible.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Secretary of State make a special effort to provide jobs for the disabled? The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reveals that only 31 per cent. of disabled people of working age have jobs.

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The employment training programme already makes special provision for disabled people, and I am glad to tell the right hon. Gentleman that take-up of those places is very high.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment is at a record level, that output is at a record level, and that the Maclnnes report is pseudo-academic bunkum?

Mr. Fowler: The report is certainly discredited as a statistical exercise. Unemployment is falling fast, and is now below that not only of the European Community average but of a host of European countries. That is a very welcome trend.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British Government are the only Government in Europe to use the benefit claimant count as a measure of unemployment, and that ours is the only country to knock people off their entitlement to unemployment benefit and then parade that as a cut in unemployment?
Will the Minister confirm also that the Government's labour force survey, which uses the same international measure of unemployment as all other countries but which, significantly, the Government have not published for the last two years, reveals that unemployment today in Britain is still over 2·6 million and that the Government's claim on Thursday that unemployment has now fallen below 2 million will be completely and utterly bogus?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is running a bit scared—[Interruption.] He is absolutely terrified that the figures next Thursday will go below 2 million, and that shows the hon. Gentleman at his contemptible worst. The comparison that I gave, which shows that the rate of unemployment in this country is below the European Community average, is on a standardised basis. There is no question about that. What the hon. Gentleman said about the labour force survey was wrong in practically every detail. I hope that by Thursday he will have done his homework.

Tourism

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his assessment of the contribution of tourism to local economies in respect of English cathedrals and cathedral cities.

Mr. Lee: Precise figures are not available. However, English cathedrals and churches are estimated to be attracting a total of 30 million visitors a year, with consequent benefits to local shops, hotels, restaurants and other businesses.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Lichfield on receiving £1 million of taxpayers' money from the European Community for employment creation in connection with the cathedral because it happens to be in a development area. Is he aware that that puts a number of other cathedrals, including Salisbury, at a double disadvantage, first because they cannot get European Community money and, secondly, because of the Minister's decision to suspend section 4 grant as priming for tourism? Will he look at both those points?

Mr. Lee: English Heritage is theoretically able to support cathedrals, but it tends to concentrate its resources on parish churches, for which it is more difficult to obtain outside funding. I suspected that the question of section 4 would be raised at Question Time today. Section 4 has undoubtedly helped the tourist industry to develop. But we must now look at it in terms of the present amount of construction work that is under way right across the country. We calculate that there is about £2·5 billion worth of new construction work under way throughout the country in respect of tourism and hospitality. Section 4


amounted to only about £13 million, and until the moratorium was announced by the Secretary of State, tourism was the only industry that had access to grant.

Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that a dozen questions about tourism have been tabled today by Conservative Members? Could it be that some of them want to waste time—when we are supposed to be discussing employment matters—by going on about tourism?

Mr. Lee: Tourism is a vital industry to this country. It sustains 1·5 million jobs and is growing at the rate of nearly 1,000 net new jobs a week. It is a subject of considerable interest to my hon. Friends. When, in June of last year, we last debated tourism, only two Members of the official Opposition participated.

Tourism

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what form he proposes to announce his conclusions following his review of tourism

Mr. Lee: The tourism review report is still under consideration and no decision has yet been taken on how the conclusions will be announced.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I declare my interest in the industry. Will the Minister use the period of suspension of section 4, which is causing some concern, to consult his colleagues in the Welsh and Scottish Offices to see the great success that they have made of the utilisation of grant? Does he agree that there are regions of England where investment is still needed, and might he consider concentrating section 4 on those areas which still need investment?

Mr. Lee: Section 4 has been a great success in England, and, as I have said, a huge amount of construction work is under way. The outlook for our home tourism industry in 1989 is now excellent, with overseas package tours under considerable pressure.

Ms. Short: Does the Minister's review of tourism take into account that that highly profitable industry is notorious for low pay, and that prosperity is not brought to a country if those who work in an industry do so for very low remuneration? Will the Minister consider that, and has he any proposals to improve employment conditions?

Mr. Lee: The tourism review does not specifically examine pay. The hon. Lady does no service to herself or to her constituents by harping continually on low pay in the industry, as by and large the overall remuneration package is improving considerably.

Mr. Bevan: Will the review consider value for money in relation to the non-statutory regional tourist boards? Will my hon. Friend also consider the provision of alternative finance—perhaps through the private sector—as a replacement for section 4 grants when encouraging those who wish to enter the industry or to develop within it?

Mr. Lee: I know of my hon. Friend's deep commitment to the tourism industry. We are examining the question of the regional tourist boards. Let me say again, however, that a huge amount of private sector investment is under way.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister reconsider his decision to cut off section 4 arbitrarily? I am particularly concerned about the north-west. Haydock park, in my constituency, was holding discussions with his Department, in the middle of which he cut off the grant. Is that not unfair?

Mr. Lee: Considerable new invesment and development work has been under way at Haydock park. As for the north-west overall, it has done extremely well in terms of new capital investment in tourism, and the tourism industry there has received substantial section 4 grants. The Granada studios tour development in Manchester, for instance, received some £750,000.

Self-employment

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently self-employed; and how many people became self-employed during the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Cope: In September 1988, the latest date for which estimates are available, there were 2,956,000 self-employed people in Great Britain, a net increase of 124,000 since September 1987.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that self-employment jobs are real jobs and make a good contribution to the economy? Will he confirm that those moving into self-employment will be able to find training opportunities on the education training scheme?

Mr. Cope: I agree with both parts of what my hon. Friend has said. Business skills training is certainly an important part of the employment training scheme.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that no less than 41 per cent. of the Government's claimed increase in jobs in the past two years allegedly comes from self-employment? Is he aware that those Government figures are simply invented—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the latest known figures date from 1981 and that in any event the lifetime of self-employed small businesses is now the shortest ever, with bankruptcies at a record high?

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman tries hard, because he cannot accept that the present work force is at its highest ever.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that self-employment provides real jobs which are not invented? Many people in my constituency and in constituencies all over the country are grateful to the Government for opportunities in self-employment, which enables some to obtain jobs for the first time.

Mr. Cope: I absolutely agree. They are real jobs, and not inventions as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) suggested. Of course the figures are estimates, but they are accurate estimates and show that jobs that people want are being provided.

Job Creation

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in the northern region.

Mr. Nicholls: In the year to September 1988 the civilian work force in employment increased by 31,000 in the northern region. The only available information about full-time and part-time employment in the regions is for female employees. This shows increases of 7,000 in female full-time employees and 8,000 in female part-time employees.

Mr. Cook: Did not the Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag in an earlier answer, when he admitted—confessed, indeed—that 45 per cent. of the new jobs were casual and part-time? Does the Minister accept that in the final quarter of last year 23,000 jobs were created in the northern region, as against the stated reduction of 33,000 in the unemployment figures? Will the Minister admit that the 10,000 difference between the two figures has simply disappeared into the Government's big bass fiddle?

Mr. Nicholls: No. The only cat to be let out of the bag today is the fact that the Opposition have a vested interest in bad news. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, in reciting his mish-mash of figures overlooked the position in his own constituency. I know that he will wish the House to know about it so I shall remind him of the figures. Unemployment in Stockton, North fell by 20 per cent. in the past year so the hon. Gentleman would have done better to have confined his remarks to saying thank you.

Mr. Janman: Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by more than 50 per cent. in the past three years, a fact that has been acknowledged and welcomed by the local Labour council? Does he agree that the MacInnes report tells us nothing about employment trends, but tells us only that Glasgow university is wasting taxpayers' money by employing charlatans to produce shoddy and intellectually bankrupt work?

Mr. Nicholls: I could not begin to cap the way in which my hon. Friend expresses his views about the quality of that report. It simply makes the point, as always, that unemployment is coming down dramatically, and Labour Members absolutely loathe that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Morgan: Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer have the January inflation figure when he leaked the 7 per cent. plus inflation figure when he spoke to his local Conservative association at Hinckley on Saturday night? Is not that an example of governmental insider trading? Did the Prime Minister sanction that leak, or will she order an inquiry into it?

The Prime Minister: No. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given forecasts before. On this occasion he

was perfectly candid. Of course he is well aware, as I am, that our record on reducing inflation greatly excels that of the previous Government.

Middle East

Mr. Latham: To ask the Prime Minister what meetings she expects to have with senior representatives of middle eastern countries during the month of February regarding the peace process in the middle east.

The Prime Minister: I look forward to meeting the Israeli Foreign Minister tomorrow.

Mr. Latham: When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Arens tomorrow, will she remind him of the wise words of Abba Eban and Ezer Weizman, supported by 54 per cent. of the Israeli voters, that it is now time to take constructive advantage of the major step forward made by Mr. Arafat in recognising Israel through United Nations resolutions Nos. 242 and 338 and to make progress from that position?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the present position is that everyone realises that the status quo cannot last and that there must be negotiations. I believe that those negotiations must be well prepared and I shall urge Mr. Arens to take advantage of the new opportunities that have been opened up. I also hope to be able to discuss those vitally important matters with Mr. Shamir in due course.

Mr. Bell: Will the Prime Minister convey to the Israeli Foreign Secretary that in the House the strongest supporters of the state of Israel are gravely disquieted by events in the Gaza strip and the West Bank? Will she convey to him that those supporters say that the sooner a dialogue is opened on the future of those territories the safer and more secure will be the state of Israel?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, it is most encouraging that both sides now accept that the status quo cannot continue and that there is an urgent need for negotiations. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important that the negotiations are well prepared so that they have a chance of fulfilling the hopes of all of us for a comprehensive settlement based on United Nations resolution No. 242.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the response of the new American Administration is crucial to any long-term settlement in the middle east, and particularly to persuading the Israeli Government to come to the negotiating table? What action are we taking, either alone or through the European Community, to bring that about?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the response of the United States' new Adminstration is absolutely crucial, particularly in helping to bring Israel to the negotiating table. I have already had discussions about this matter, first with President Bush when he was President-elect and with the American Secretary of State, Mr. Jim Baker, over the weekend. Both countries share the view that it is important that the middle east should have near top priority in foreign matters—after that given to East-West relations—but that we should not rush to the negotiating table until full and proper preparations have been made.

Ms. Short: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not enough merely to call on the Israelis to negotiate, when there is no sign that they will do so? Will she consider taking action to force Israel at least to abide by the Geneva convention on the treatment of people in occupied territories and to stop the annexation of land, the deportation of people, illegal detention without trial and the demolition of houses? Britain should put pressure on Israel to improve conditions in the occupied territories and to bring it to the negotiating table.

The Prime Minister: Over the years, many people have told Israel about those actions which are unacceptable. It is important, now that there is a feeling that it is time for negotiations, that we concentrate on starting them while there is the best possible chance of success. I believe that that chance is higher now than it has been for many a long year.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Israelis are hearing the voices of the true friends of Israel throughout the world who feel that talks are long overdue? Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), is she confident that the United States will not only continue the Tunis talks with the PLO but will upgrade them? Will she also consider upgrading our level of talks with PLO representatives in the future?

The Prime Minister: I see no reason to go any further immediately than we have already gone with the PLO. As my hon. Friend knows, we do not necessarily accept the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. There are other people who could well represent them. That factor—precisely who shall negotiate—needs to be addressed when preparing for the negotiations. Another fact that must be addressed is whether the negotiations will take place in the framework of the five permanent members of the Security Council, as I believe most parties would wish.

Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McFall: Is the Prime Minister aware that thousands of young people have vanished from the registers of state agencies as a result of losing their automatic entitlement to social security benefit? Is she further aware of the comments of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Services, which say that this underclass of 16 to 17-year-olds are drifting into crime, homelessness and, in some cases, even prostitution?
Will the Government give a commitment that the Social Security Bill before the House will contain some concession to eliminate this scandal? If not, will the Prime Minister agree that the policies that she has pursued over the last decade are the antithesis of the sentiments she preached on the doorstep of No. 10 in May 1979, when she had the gall to quote that great prayer of St. Francis of Assisi? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: No. Social security has been withdrawn from the 16 and 17-year-olds—with the exception of those who are disabled or in very keen need—because they can stay at school, take training or take a

YTS job. The number of YTS jobs available exceeds the numbers applying for them. Conservative Members think that it is far better for young people to be trained than to choose to be idle.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Motability on the initiative that it showed in launching yesterday a campaign, with all-party support, for the promotion of unleaded petrol—not only for the disabled but for all car owners—which will benefit the nation's health and the environment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was an excellent initiative and it will be received very well, I believe, throughout Britain, where more and more people are conscious of the need to convert their cars to unleaded petrol and more and more oil companies are conscious of the need to provide that petrol on the forecourts of garages. It is important to the health of children. Government cars are being gradually converted. Not all of them can be converted immediately; some of us have to wait for new cars. However, this was a splended initiative, which augurs well for the future, and I congratulate all those involved in it.

Mr. Kinnock: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's previous answers to questions, can she tell us what she had for lunch today: was it eggs, cheese, or the Minister of Agriculture?

The Prime Minister: Cheshire cheese, and very good it was.

Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the Prime Minister can help us further. A Cabinet Minister yesterday said, "What John has said is that he is thinking about banning cheese." John said, "There is no question of banning cheese." What does Margaret say?

The Prime Minister: I really had expected better of the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. This takes up a lot of time.

The Prime Minister: It seems to me schoolboy stuff. May I take advantage of the question that the right hon. Gentleman has asked, as there appears to be some confusion?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. This takes up a lot of time.

The Prime Minister: There is a different position in Scotland from that in England and Wales, and the chief medical officer has given very, very clear and explicit advice. The position in Scotland is that there is already a ban on sales of unpasteurised liquid milk and cream to the general public. Unpasteurised milk may still be used for cheese-making, though there is a code of practice on good hygiene procedure.
In England and Wales the Ministry of Agriculture is considering whether unpasteurised liquid milk and cream for sale to the general public should also be banned, and a consultation document will be issued shortly. A code of practice for major manufacturers of soft cheeses has already been issued, and one for smaller cheese-making businesses is in draft.
On listeriosis, the chief medical officer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question and she is answering it.

The Prime Minister: It is a comprehensive answer. On listeriosis, the chief medical officer's advice is that pregnant women and certain other categories of people should not eat certain types of soft cheeses. That advice applies irrespective of the type of milk from which they are made. The chief medical officer also gave advice that these people should fully reheat cook-chill meals and ready-to-eat poultry until they are piping hot. Those are the facts and the advice.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Interruptions take up a lot of time.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you criticise our Back Benchers for wasting time; what about the right hon. Lady?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.—[Interruption.]

Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend now turn to international matters of real significance? Will my right hon. Friend utilise the hot line between her and the White House to talk to the President about matters of international significance, and also pay tribute to the outgoing American ambassador, who has contributed so much to the special relationship which exists between our two countries?

The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. and learned Friend's advice. Yes, we still confer closely with the President of the United States and I gladly pay tribute to the services in this country of the retiring American ambassador, which have been quite outstanding and

which have contributed greatly to the special relationship that we have with the United States. I pay tribute also to Mrs. Price, who has been absolutely marvellous as well.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister not find it somewhat odd to be lecturing other Europeans on the safety of their cheese while at the same time refusing to accept European standards for the higher safety and quality of our water?

The Prime Minister: We are accepting European standards for the higher safety and quality of our water. I hope that some other European countries are doing as well as we are. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps not recall that for the last four years we have deliberately increased capital expenditure on water, so all of a sudden the Opposition are complaining about the necessary increase in prices and the necessary capital expenditure. Capital expenditure on water will continue to rise both this year and next. It will go up to something like £1·4 billion to improve some of the capital equipment. We are doing it as quickly as possible. With regard to cheese and other food, the right hon. Gentleman ought to look at the World Health Organisations's working party report of last February. Other European countries have taken action on cheese, including Switzerland.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is still Question Time.

Storm Damage (Scotland)

Mr. Brian Wilson(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the extent of storm damage in Scotland and what steps the Government propose to take to alleviate any damage caused.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The effect of the storms in Scotland in the course of 13 February has been very widespread. Damage has been sustained by a wide range of services and facilities, including piers, airports, roads, railways, housing, schools, hospitals, telephone links and power lines. In particular, a high proportion of consumers in the north of Scotland lost power as a result of the storms.
At dawn today, a total of some 56,000 people were without an electricity supply—39,000 in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's area and 17,000 in the area of the South of Scotland electricity board. I am glad to say that the SSEB has already reconnected about half of those affected and hopes to be able to reconnect virtually all of the remainder today. There will, however, probably still be a significant number of customers in the north of Scotland without supply tonight. The north board's transmission repair teams are fully deployed and helicopters are being used to locate faults. The SSEB hopes to be able to make available some of its engineers to help the north board tomorrow. On behalf of both boards I would like to thank the Electricity Council and the area boards in England for the offers of help which they have given.
I have received a number of reports of damage to schools and to hospitals throughout the country. For the most part, the damage is to roofing and windows and is relatively minor, although there are some reports of more serious roof damage. A number of schools have been closed because of power failures. As far as transport is concerned, a number of roads were blocked by trees, and rail services were also affected. Most of the affected roads and railway lines will be cleared in the course of today.
I would like to pay tribute to the local authorities, the electricity boards, the emergency services and the community generally for their splendid efforts both to make facilities available for those who have had to leave their homes as a result of the storms and to repair the damage.
It is of course too soon to say what is the full extent of the storm damage, and I am asking for reports from the local authorities and other public bodies involved. We stand ready to play our full part in working with those affected to repair the damage caused by last night's storms.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that, when storms of comparable ferocity hit the south-east of England in 1987, the Government very quickly announced the allocation of £22·6 million in compensation to local authorities, with additional sums from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Countryside Commission? Does he accept that, once the assessment has been made, the response in Scotland must be no less prompt or adequate? Is he aware that the coastguard stations around the Scottish coast described last night as one of their busiest on record? We pay tribute

to the efforts of the coastguard service, and advise the colleagues of the Secretary of State to abandon the idiotic idea of closing coastguard stations.
Is the Secretary of State aware that housing authorities throughout Scotland will face devastating repair bills as a result of last night's storm and those that we are told may be still to come? Will he ensure that special allocations are made to these hard-pressed authorities to help them to meet this act of God? Will he urgently reassess non-housing revenue account allocations to district and island councils to take account of the extensive damage that must have been done to private property already in dire need of repairs.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the storm damage in the Highlands comes on top of a period of severe flooding? Is he yet in a position to announce the Government's response on that front? In particular, will he assure the House today that there will be no question of railway services north and west of Inverness being lost as a result of the Ness bridge collapse? Will he recognise the particular devastation caused to the fish farming industry, and will he assure us that the non-culpable fish farmers will be compensated with at least the same generosity as the egg producers?
Will the Secretary of State enter immediately into sympathetic discussions with local authorities and health boards to identify the scale of the financial burden that these storms have visited upon them, and will he assure the House today that the Government will be just and generous in their response?
Finally, will the Secretary of State refer to the Official Report of 4 April 1968, where he will find that at that time the total number of unemployed slaters and felters available in Scotland to meet the housing emergency following the last great Scottish storm was 33? Will he recognise that there are an awful lot more than 33 slaters and felters available in Scotland today, and will he ensure that the local authorities have the human resources to meet this crisis?

Mr. Rifkind: First of all, obviously the response of Her Majesty's Government will be in accordance with the needs that are disclosed following these events. Well understood principles apply when there is either storm damage or other civil emergency of this kind, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's response will be fully appropriate to the occasion.
I agree with the hon. Member in the tribute he paid to the work of the coastguards. They do indeed have a difficult task, and they have responded magnificently over the last 24 hours.
Naturally, we wait to hear from the housing authorities, and, for that matter, from the health boards and other public bodies, about the extent of the damage caused. Once we have had an opportunity to consider the reports we receive from those bodies, we will be in a position to judge what needs to be done by them, by us, or by both.
With regard to the floods in the Highlands last week, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that on Friday I communicated with the convenor of Highland region and of Inverness district council and invited them, and, indeed, any others involved, to let us have the full details of the damage done by last week's flooding. British Rail, of course, has already announced its intention to rebuild the


railway bridge at Inverness as soon as that is physically possible, and I am delighted that it was able to give such a speedy and comprehensive response.
With the health boards too, as with the local authorities, we await the details of the damage done. Apparently it is mainly the roofing of various buildings that is affected, although, of course, other damage may become apparent.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about fish farmers. I think that most fish farmers will have been insured to deal with any damage that may have been caused to their farms, as will others in that capacity, but we await further information on that.

Sir Hector Monro: In commiserating with all those who have borne the brunt of the very rough weather of the last couple of weeks, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look sympathetically at the level of grants that are available for repairs to flood banks, fencing and farm buildings that may have been seriously affected? It is very important, in the long term, that they should be repaired or replaced as soon as possible.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. There are forms of assistance available to help those with particular problems. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland is currently evaluating the damage that was done. I will take into account my hon. Friend's remarks in due course.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Recognising the importance of the electricity supply industry to communities in the north of Scotland, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that the work done by the teams restoring electricity power is extremely important? Will he guarantee that these teams will continue to exist when the service motive is replaced by the profit motive, which will result from privatisation?

Mr. Rifkind: There is no question of those facilities not continuing. The regulatory nature and the provisions of the privatisation proposals will ensure that exactly the same service will continue to be available in circumstances such as we have had in the last 24 hours.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: From this side of the House, may I join in the tribute to all those in the public services—particularly the linesmen of the electricity boards—and to private individuals as well who worked so hard yesterday and during the night to restore essential services? May I say also that on this side of the House we have confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend that, where help, financial or otherwise, needs to be given, it will be given, but that it is only sensible that the whole extent and the amount involved are properly and thoroughly assessed first?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is correct in saying that one has to get an assessment of the damage caused and the work that needs to be done to repair that damage before one can reach detailed conclusions. That is what we are doing at present.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the emergency services, which worked so hard throughout the west and north of Scotland last night. Can the Secretary of State give any idea of when he will know the overall cost in global terms of the damage done? It must amount to

millions of pounds. I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the damage that has been done in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. He will know that Inverness is reeling for a second time from the effects of the storms, with 15 roofs blown off houses last night and extensive damage done to roads. How will people on low income and on income support find assistance to repair their houses? Will he give assistance to the relevant bodies to replant many of the mature and beautiful trees that were blown down during the storm?

Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, in the first instance, local authorities will be responsible for the repair of any damaged local authority housing. Most owner-occupiers will have insurance to cover damage caused to their housing. That ought to meet that aspect. The Government have various schemes to encourage planting to replace trees damaged as a result of storms. They may be appropriate in the circumstances referred to by the hon. Lady.
As to the time scale involved, we can get information from the health boards and from other Government bodies quickly. I hope that we will also receive information from the relevant local authorities, but that is a matter for them. I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been particular damage in parts of her constituency. I understand, for example, that there was considerable damage to one block at Oban high school. I think the same has been found in other areas.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that anyone in the south of England who experienced the damage 18 months ago will not begrudge any necessary help being given to our friends in Scotland on this occasion?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his expression of support at this time.

Dr. John Reid: I am sure that hon. Members on this side will wish to be identified and associated with the tributes that have already been paid, not only to the emergency services for the way they responded, but also to members and staff of local authorities who have been working in some cases throughout the night.
Will the Secretary of State accept that there is a sense in which words are cheap? Will he be prepared to guarantee that his money, or rather our money, will be put where his mouth is by assuring us that financial assistance will be not only "as appropriate", in his words, but commensurate with the financial assistance given after the storms which hit the south-east on 31 October 1987?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is more essential than ever for local authorities in Scotland, because their housing budgets are already sorely pressed and in many cases housing conditions are far below par? Will he accept that in my constituency, Motherwell district council had already had, as of 2 o'clock today, 1,200 emergency telephone calls, and that is an initial estimate of the cost if meeting those claims well in excess of £150,000? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore—as the Secretary of State for the Environment did in 1987—give us a guarantee that full financial assistance will be forthcoming?

Mr. Rifkind: I obviously await information from the hon. Gentleman's local authority on the circumstances in


his constituency. On the general principle, I believe that I can do no better than quote the words of the late Willie Ross, who, when Secretary of State in 1968—after severe storm damage—said:
As to the assessment of the cost of the damage done and questions of how this burden should fall, I think that we must wait until we get a proper assessment of the damage."—[Official Report, 16 January 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1629.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend is of course entirely correct in referring to the 1968 precedent and how possible compensation was handled last time. Will he undertake as far as is reasonable to follow that precedent? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he should take expert advice on the damage in the north of Scotland? Is he aware that Sir Albert McQuarrie has considerable experience and expertise in this area? Will he consult Sir Albert on the best methods to deal with the problem?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. I believe that it is possible that, if I do not consult Sir Albert, he will consult me.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my tributes to the emergency services and, in doing so, I should like to pay tribute to the work force of the Inverclyde district council, whose members responded so magificently last night. Communities in Iverclyde have suffered widespread damage because of this gale. More than 1,000 houses in the public and private sectors have suffered damage to a greater or lesser extent. In Belville street, Greenock, three rooftops of tower blocks of flats were ripped off. Will the Secretary of State assure us—based on the experience in the aftermath of recent tragedies and accidents—that financial assistance will be given quickly and generously to Inverclyde district council and others, including individuals on the lower Clyde who have suffered so grievously because of this storm?

Mr. Rifkind: I can confirm that there has indeed been some serious damage to certain houses in the Inverclyde area. I naturally hope that the Inverclyde district council will let us have as soon as it is physically able the details of the damage and the extent to which it requires help towards rectifying that damage.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the properties currently without electricity is my own home? In addition, also like some of my constituents, I have trees down in my garden. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my constituency has suffered badly from floods and that, in addition, the skiing season has been almost non-existent? The problems created by the winds last night have produced the kind of economic havoc that, if it had happened in other parts of the country, would certainly have caused the newscasters last night to give it broad coverage. It was the absence of coverage last night which may have led people to think that the situation is not as serious as it is. It is very serious and requires immediate action. We are grateful to those in the emergency services, who have worked throughout the night.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the scale of the damage appears to have been very widespread. Fortunately, at the moment there does not appear to have been loss of life as

a direct consequence, but, undoubtedly, a large number of buildings appear to have suffered some damage, especially to their roofs. The other main area of damage appears to have been cuts in electricity supplies. As I have said, the South of Scotland electricity board expects to have all the electricity lines reconnected today. The Hydro Board may take a little longer, but it is getting maximum help not only from the South of Scotland electricity board, but from the English area boards and the Electricity Council.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: May I also express my gratitude to the rescue services for their tremendous work to bring relief from the hardship caused by the storm? It is now up to the Secretary of State to play his part. Will he personally visit the areas affected? When a similar storm occurred in England, a ministerial statement was instantly available, whereas for Scotland information has had to be dragged out by a private notice question. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that new money will be placed on the table to help local authorities and other organisations on a similar basis to that in England, and preferably a better one?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice. We were intending to make a statement today, but when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) put down his private notice question, it was obviously appropriate to answer in this way. We will respond in a fair, adequate and comprehensive way, given the nature of the problem. Sadly, this is not the first time that such events have occurred in various parts of the United Kingdom. The Government will respond, as previous Governments have done, to ensure that this matter is dealt with sensitively and properly.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the incongruity of the fact that the Scottish taxpayers and ratepayers will properly repair the damage to the roads, but that British Rail will have to cope with the damage to the railway, in addition to the disastrous bridge loss that was suffered in Inverness last week? On that basis, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that ScotRail should certainly qualify for exactly the same level of assistance as all other public utilities in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to ScotRail for the way in which it responded in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the rail bridge at Inverness, to make it clear that it attached considerable importance to the rail connection to the north of Scotland being re-established as quickly as possible. It has said that the bridge will be reconstructed as quickly as physically possible.
In addition, I am naturally anxious that, during the period that must elapse before the bridge is reconstructed, we examine the particular requirements of those who use the railway services as passengers and for the purposes of freight, to ensure that no economic damage is done to the north of Scotland by the lact of availability of those rail services in the immediate future. Obviously, facilities have been made available to enable people to go from the south side of the River Ness to the north side to continue their railway journeys. The freight problem, however, may be more difficult to resolve.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As one whose own constituency suffered in the storm of 1987, I appreciate the importance of the statement. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising, but I ask them to be brief, as we have important business to follow.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: As one who had personal experience of the 1968 storm, may I say that the Secretary of State should be aware that many of the families who have been left without a roof at the moment will suffer from the rain and that their homes could be easily flooded, as mine was in 1968. Could the emergency services try to do something to ensure that at least tarpaulins are used to make the houses wind and watertight in this deplorable weather?
I mean no disrespect to a former Member of this House, but it was the proud boast of Albert McQuarrie that he made his first million in the 1968 storm. I know for a fact that a great deal of the money that was handed over to the city of Glasgow by the Government went to the insurance companies, because they claimed that they were replacing new for old. Surely the Secretary of State should have discussions with the insurance companies to ensure that they do not make a fortune out of yet another storm.

Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. On the earlier part of his question, I agree that it will be necessary either to ensure that housing is wind and watertight or, if that is not possible in the immediate future, that emergency accommodation is available to those who are unable to live in their own homes.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: While we appreciate that it is too early to estimate the total damage to local authority housing, will the Secretary of State at least undertake that paying for this damage will not result in poll tax increases for the already suffering poll tax payers? Will he also guarantee that local authorities will not suffer clawback for spending the necessary money to carry out repairs?

Mr. Rifkind: I can assure the hon. Lady that we would consider very sympathetically any suggestion by local authorities that they might suffer penalties as a consequence of expenditure incurred in this way. The hon. Lady knows that the penalty system is very soon to disappear. I certainly hope to be able to respond to that matter in a sympathetic way.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfirmline): Will the Secretary of State give us some additional information about what happened to the Mylesmark hospital in Dunfermline, and could he tell us the position with regard to reimbursement of the Fife health board? Because of the age of that hospital, what surveys will be undertaken? Not only is the hospital old, but the patients tend to be senior citizens. Therefore, as well as thanking the hospital board, we have to thank the Fife fire brigade and others who assisted in this very difficult task. Fortunately, I understand that there were no severe injuries.

Mr. Rifkind: I understand that that is correct, and I echo the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Health Service which was dealing with the problem. I understand that approximately 20 patients have been moved from the hospital. We shall discuss with the health board any repairs that are required to make the hospital fully available for its proper purpose.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State make financial help available to those home owners in Scotland whose houses have suffered damage but who may not be insured? Will he also consult the National Trust for Scotland to obtain an assessment of damage to its properties?

Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, one will be interested in hearing from the National Trust for Scotland about the consequences for its properties. With regard to home owners, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the whole purpose of insurance is to anticipate these problems. Few people would be inclined to take out insurance if they knew that the taxpayer would pay for any damage when they had failed to ensure their property.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: But bearing in mind the fact that some insurance policies still classify storm damage as an act of God, will the Secretary of State assure us that he will not simply sit back and wait on divine intervention to repair the damage, but use his ministerial powers of intervention, in the same spirit of generosity as the good Lord Willie Ross did back in 1968; as the Secretary of State's own ministerial colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment did when he handed out £22·6 million to people in the south east because of their storm damage in October 1987; and as the Minister of Agriculture did when back in November 1985 he handed out £17 million to the farmers in compensation for bad weather?

Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that precedents are always of interest on these occasions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to apply the same principles as have been applied in the past to judging the contribution that should be made from the various public bodies concerned to help those affected by these events.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Secretary of State aware that, during the weather of the past 24 to 48 hours, in the Conon valley it has been reported by local people that the River Conon was within just a few inches of bursting its banks again and causing further severe flooding of the type that occurred last week, and that the village of Fort Augustus was also put on a flood alert? Do these events not emphasise the need for reparation of the type that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested for the Highland region and Inverness district, and should there not be a full flood prevention scheme involving restoration of banks, which have given way in that valley and caused havoc no less than three times over the past 25 years?

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, these are matters that we wish to investigate as a result of the events of last week. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has asked, for example, for a report from the Hydro Board about its facilities in the Conon area.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I suppose it is appropriate that I should speak near the end of this questioning, as I was one of the Ministers involved in the 1968 clear-up and expenditure. There seem to have been two heroes then, one of whom was Albert McQuarrie and the other Willie Ross. Will the Secretary of State keep in mind Willie Ross's classic answer when he was pestered by the Opposition at that time to send Ministers up to take


charge: "It's no' Ministers we need in Glasgow; it's slaters." I remind the Secretary of State that that is exactly what we want now.
The other commitment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave was that we would be paying for it. We undertook almost all the finance to repair the damage; we were soaked for it by certain people, but it was necessary to do that.
Secondly, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept again from the Labour Benches and pass on, through the Scottish Office, all our thanks to the various bodies that have been involved over the past 24 hours in dealing with this emergency?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. We shall no doubt be receiving the reports that we require from the local authorities which will enable us, in discussion with local authorities and other public bodies, to decide how the damage can most quickly be rectified so that people may return to their homes and the various schools and hospitals carry out their necessary work without the consequences of the storms.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will full use be made of the Bellwin scheme in order to assist local authorities as occurred after the gale damage in the south of England? There are some worrying precedents, since the Bellwin scheme was not used after the flood damage in Strabane. It clearly should be used in this case, where the damage is comparable to that experienced in the south of England.

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to what is often described as the Bellwin scheme. We shall certainly have regard to the general principles of that scheme in determining our approach to these matters.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The coastguard union officials currently campaigning in the Committee Room upstairs will be pleased to hear the Secretary of State describe the work of their colleagues last night as magnificent, but will he accept that they would be even more pleased if he would intervene to stop the rationalisation of that public service which is presently being carried out?

Mr. Rifkind: This is not the occasion to discuss the proposal to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of the appropriate quarter.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: May I too add my tribute to the local authority employees and the emergency services who did such a terrific job during the storm? Granted that the Secretary of State cannot give a precise assessment of the cost of the damage, will he give a commitment that that cost will not fall upon the local authorities and end up being put on to the poll tax, which is already hitting the people in the north of Scotland? Will he also take into account the fact that there is moratorium in my constituency on improvement grants for people who wish to repair private housing? Will he look into that and perhaps provide some extra money to help people repair the damage that the storm caused to their private houses?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from my answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), certain principles are applied to such civil emergencies throughout the United Kingdom. We shall expect to apply the same general approach as has been applied on previous occasions. I am conscious of the fact that, quite apart from the housing damage, there has been damage to many educational buildings. For example, the Liniclate secondary school in Benbecula in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has been seriously damaged. Naturally, that is also a matter that we shall wish to discuss with the Islands council to discover the extent of the damage and what will be required to return the school to its proper use as quickly as possible.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the widespread damage in my constituency. I appreciate his concern and I welcome his commitment to consider financial support for all those who have experienced loss. Is he aware that, at the height of the storm yesterday afternoon, falling masonry from Rutherglen town hall narrowly avoided killing people on the main street? When he comes to reviewing the financial arrangements, will he specifically consider the needs of Rutherglen town hall?

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we shall take into account any representations that we receive from the hon. Gentleman's local authority because, clearly, the town hall is among the buildings that have been damaged by the storm.

Mr. John McAllion: The Minister said earlier that local authorities would be expected to take responsibility for repairing council housing, but would not that be an unfair way of dealing with a natural disaster? Surely it is unfair that local authorities should be expected to raise the money to meet such costs, when the only means that the Government have left them is to push up rents, and rents should not go up as a result of a national disaster.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may have read more into my remarks than I intended. It must, in the first instance, be for the local authorities to take responsibility for repairing damage done to the houses that they own. Whether that should have consequences for their capital allocations, either on the housing revenue account or otherwise, is another matter on which we shall wish to hear local authorities' views on the extent of the problems that they face.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State comment on the contrast between the rather grudging statement made by the Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, when he visited the Highlands last week, and the conduct of a procession of Ministers who fell over themselves to hand out £23 million to people in the south of England following the storm in October 1987? If this is a united kindom, will equivalent compensation be paid to both countries?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that exactly the same criteria apply to an emergency in Scotland as applied to an emergency in the south of England. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that this is a united kingdom and there is no basis on which different criteria should be


applied if people lose their lives, homes or properties in various parts of the kingdom. If that is of concern to the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to reassure him.

Points of Order

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will like this, because, as usual, it is very helpful. Let me take you back to Prime Minister's Question Time, the confusion that reigned in the House and the difficulty in which the Chair was placed as a result of the Prime Minister's extremely long answer, which some of us would describe unkindly as time wasting. I know that you are a great football fan and last Wednesday the referee in Scotland-Cyprus game added on six minutes to compensate for time wasted. Would not that be a good principle for the occupant of the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: I am often tempted, but that way we would not get much business done.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the Opposition chooses to ask a planted question, should not the Opposition listen to the answer?

Mr. Speaker: We should all listen to the answer, which today was one that the House was waiting to hear.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) did not tell you that the referee was knocked out after the game.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is probably the first time that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answer has been longer than that of the Leader of the Opposition's question, perhaps in future you could subtract time from Question Time if the Leader of the Opposition goes on at his usual length.

Mr. Speaker: I know that there was some difficulty during Employment questions today. Long supplementary questions lead to long answers and we do not get through many questions. I am in favour of calling as many Back Benchers as possible.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If there had been an extra six minutes, as Scotland had in that match when rt scored the vital goal—[Interruption.] Scotland will probably qualify and England might not. If we had those six minutes today, an hon. Member might have asked about the way in which the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer was treated at the royal mint in Wales this morning during the by—election campaign.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Skinner: This is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, so listen carefully. He was ordered by the Treasury that he must not step into—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was mentioning the royal mint in connection with a function here today. I know nothing about the other matter.

Mr. Skinner: No, well, I was coming on to that. I was going on to say that if we had had those extra six minutes we could have raised this important new development in Government authoritarianism, in which the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is refused admission to the


royal mint which was sent to Wales by a Labour Government after the Conservative party had refused to let it go—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must use my authority on this matter. I know nothing about that. If the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is in London, he is welcome to come to the party that I shall be giving tonight for the royal mint.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We accept entirely the fact that this is not a matter for you, because we realise that you are in the middle of the situation. But, since the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are present, let me say that it is extraordinary for one of the most senior Members of the Opposition Front Bench to be denied entrance to a public establishment such as the mint. May I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the House to consult the Chancellor—we understand that the local mint officials had to refer the issue to the Treasury and, therefore, the Chancellor's office—and for the Chancellor to come to the House and explain why that peculiar exclusion order was enforced?

Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not further to the point of order. I will hear one more, but it is nothing to do with me. I do not know anything at all about this.

Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On this occasion I have some sympathy with hon. Gentlemen. I feel that in the circumstances, in which the Labour party is in severe difficulties in the Pontypridd by-election and is desperate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. [Interruption.] I will be calling the hon. Gentleman in the debate very soon, so I think that we ought to get on.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not having any more on that.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises.

Mr. Skinner: You issued the electoral writ—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Poll Tax (Restoration of Individual Privacy)

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in order to protect an individual's privacy.
The poll tax is the pinnacle of perniciousness under this Tory regime. Some families in my constituency in Leyton will have to pay £1,000 or more a year, and they will go bankrupt. It is, however, the abuse of privacy that I am concerned with today. The title of the Bill speaks for itself. By the time the poll tax is finally introduced, more than £100 million will have been spent to keep tabs on all adults over the age of 18—money which could be much better spent on providing badly needed public services. Instead, millions will be spent on computers and bureaucrats so that local authority officials can invade people's privacy to collect the poll tax.
Valentine's day is a poignant day on which to introduce this Bill. It is a day for lovers. Yet in future, poll tax officers will be entitled to know who lives and sleeps with whom so that they can collect the tax. The implementation of the social security cohabitation rule, under which DHSS officials spy on women claimants' sex lives, will seem but a small fondle compared with the collection methods for the poll tax, which will be an orgasm of privacy abuse. Today is also the day of the Valentine's day massacre, but on this occasion it is our privacy rights that are being massacred by the poll tax.
The Guardian of 4 October last year had the following to say:
Couples face policing by poll tax rules. Local council finance officers"—
that is, poll tax officers—
will be expected to play policeman to force deserted spouses to pay their errant partner's poll tax, according to draft Environment Department guidelines. They will also have to decide whether people sharing a house are living as man and wife and are therefore liable for each others tax and whether couples have separated. … Joint and several liability for poll tax applies not only to married couples but also to couples living together as man and wife … In general … where a husband leaves the matrimonial home without paying his poll tax, officials should resist the 'administratively more straightforward' course of forcing the deserted wife to pay. They should try to trace the husband. However if they fail—and the Environment Department thinks that will not happen often"—
who are they kidding?—
then the officers may force the wife to pay, perhaps by seizing the video or deducting the debt from her earnings.
The authorities are to hound and punish women on their own in their own homes for the faults of their partners. Under the Government's poll tax proposals, everyone is to be tagged, tabulated and taxed. Individual privacy has been cast aside as of no value and its loss—in addition to the poll tax itself—is a price that everybody will have to pay. The Government are not too bothered because privacy, like the quality of life, is not easily measured in pounds sterling. The poll tax will be a snooper's charter. Many private bailiff companies are already eager to act as bounty hunters, and councils such as big-pay-off Westminster prepared to hire them.
The purpose of my Bill is to highlight the ways in which privacy is eroded by the poll tax. It also attempts to protect


poll tax data in law at least to the same extent as the census. Each clause restricts the invasion of privacy that will occur with the poll tax. The detailed provisions are as follows.
Clause 1 ensures that personal data can be used or collected only if it is fully in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1984. The exceptions to that Act granted to poll tax officers are removed. Under my Bill, personal data must be obtained fairly and lawfully and poll tax officers must not mislead people as to why the information is required. Disclosure from the poll tax registeres will be subject to the control exercised by the data protection registrar. Then, at least, he will be able to take up complaints from the public about the misuse of information originally obtained for poll tax purposes.
Clause 2, for Scotland, and clause 3, for England and Wales, provide that public inspection of the extract of the register must be for a purpose associated with the poll tax and not for any other purpose such as debt collecting, direct mailing—that is, junk mail—policing and purposes of that kind. In Scotland, anybody can inspect the register or an extract from the register for any purpose. Such unfettered access is an abuse of individual rights, making individuals subject in future to commercial and authoritarian exploitation.
Clause 4 states that information about an individual held for poll tax purposes can he disclosed by a poll tax officer only for a purpose associated with the poll tax and with the consent of the individual. It prevents poll tax registers from being a source of information for other organisations which should have no right to that information on individuals.
Clauses 5 and 6 go together. Clause 5 makes it an offence for any person or organisation to hold or process personal data from more than one poll tax register unless the individual concerned has consented. This stops registers being merged or combined and thus prevents their being used to keep track of the movements of individuals or being used in a wider population database.
Clause 6 also places a restriction on collection of the date of birth, so that it is legitimately obtained only where two or more people with the same name live at the same address. That is important because, when people are vetted, their date of birth is required. Without the date of birth, the register is unattractive as a starting point for black lists, credit references and general vetting registers, for which it otherwise would be used. In Scotland it is already possible to combine poll tax registers and, through the use of the date of birth, develop unique personal identifiers in a database that would include the whole adult population of Scotland. That is an intolerable situation, but it is quite legal under the current poll tax law.
Clause 7 removes the Secretary of State's power to breach a duty of confidentiality and disclose any

information for poll tax purposes. Any disclosure by him would then be subject to the Data Protection Act, as it should be. At the moment, social services Ministers have the power to blurt out almost anything they like if it help in the collection of the poll tax. No at-risk person will be safe from a Minister more interested in collecting the poll tax than in protecting a social services case.
Also in relation to the social services connection, clause 8 allows any local authority to refuse to provide information to the poll tax officer if that authority is satisfied that the disclosure would seriously undermine the services that it provides to an individual. That is not the case with regard to the poll tax at present.
Under clause 9, the electoral registrar can use the poll tax register to encourage people to vote. However, if the electoral registrar uses the poll tax register, the right to sell the electoral register ceases under my Bill, and the electoral register can be inspected only for electoral purposes. Although the Government have stopped the sale of the poll tax register, the current law allows the poll tax register to be copied by the electoral registrar and the information placed on the electoral register and then sold to all the marketeers, vetters and black-listers who want it. That is a ludicrous situation.
Finally, clause 10 gets the name right, so that it is the more common usage "poll tax" rather than the ridiculously misleading misnomer "community charge". Ministers answering parliamentary questions are currently saying that they are not introducing a poll tax. That is ridiculous. Of course they are doing so—and they will riot fool the public by denying that they are and using another name.
The poll tax has both commercial and police state potential, and under the present Government privacy comes a poor third to both. Abuses will certainly occur. In the final analysis, if individual privacy rights are to be properly maintained, the poll tax must be abolished. 1 hope to support a Labour Government that will do just that.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Martin Redmond.

POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY)

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in order to protect an individual's privacy: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 75]

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Housing Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Secretary of State for the Environment, I may tell the House that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have written asking to take part in the debate, and others may wish to do so. I do not propose to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches today, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members to make brief contributions, so that all those who wish to participate in the debate may do so.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill contains a series of reforms, and I will discuss each in the order in which they appear in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will probably perform his usual trick and say that this is the 50th local government Bill since 1979. That is a good round number on which to complete the process of local government reform. The Bill completes the new regime for local authorities that we promised at the last general election, and I hope that we can leave it to work for many years—nay, decades—to come.
The first part of the Bill enacts the remaining recommendations of the Widdicombe committee that we have accepted. We have no written constitution. Instead, in central Government, we abide by certain conventions that the Opposition, quite rightly, make sure we observe. Civil servants do not take part in political activity. We have accounting officers who make sure that Ministers keep within financial rules, and the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office make sure that we do not engage in wrong financial practice.
You, Mr. Speaker, ensure that we safeguard the rights of minorities in the House, to be heard and to be represented on Committees. You also make sure that only those entitled to vote in this House do so. For decades, local authorities followed the same principles voluntarily. I very much regret that over the last 10 years, a minority of local authorities—most of them Labour-controlled, but not entirely—have flouted those same conventions, and that it is now necessary to legislate. But it is. We must ensure the same integrity in local government affairs that we ourselves practise, centrally and in this House.
First, we will establish a post of monitoring officer, whom all councils will be required to designate—not unlike the accounting officers in Government Departments. That person will have a duty to report to the council on any proposal or decision that may be illegal, in breach of a code of practice, or likely to result in maladministration or injustice. We gave a similar role to the finance officer in respect of council expenditure under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
Secondly, we intend clarifying the roles of elected members and officers. There was a time—not that long ago—when no self-respecting senior council officer would dream of taking part in any public political activity. His or her job was as a neutral professional adviser to the council, and that is where their loyalty lay—not to the majority

party of the day. No senior civil servant is allowed to take part in public political activities, and no civil servant can be a Member of this House.
Most local authority officers still hold to that principle. However, it is a sad fact that some of them have sunk to providing advice as a senior officer in one authority, while expounding their political views in the council chamber of another authority. To put it the other way around, is it right that politicians should, at the same time, take a job in another council as a subsidy for their political activities? How can a member of the public rely on that officer's impartial advice?
The Bill ends twin tracking in three bands of restricted posts—first, chief officers and their deputies; secondly, other sensitive posts identified by each council on the basis of statutory criteria; thirdly, other staff earning £13,500 per annum or more, who—if they are not in sensitive posts—will be able to apply to an independent national adjudicator for exemption.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being absolutely hypocritical? Over the years, many chief officers have been ardent supporters of the Conservative party—as have some senior civil servants. The Government take the view that to be a Conservative supporter is non-political. Others take the view that if one is political, one stands by one's own party. When I became chairman of a Liverpool city council committee, I was told by the chief officer that I could not do this, this and this. I asked him whether it would be against the law, and was told no. Therefore, I told that chief officer, "We will do this, this and this—and I shall take the consequences." We often get advice from chief officers that is pure Toryism—nothing else.

Mr. Ridley: When I first became a Minister, I was told that I could not do this, this and this—and I have always abided by those conventions. Fond though I am of the hon. Gentleman, and much though I admire him, I am extremely glad that he is not a civil servant in my Department, advising me at the same time as he is performing his parliamentary duties.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Recently, the chief officer of Westminster city council told that council and its Tory group, "You should not do this, this, and this." He advised them that it would not be wise to sell off the council's cemeteries for 5p a piece, and suggested that to do so might be asset stripping. Despite that advice from Mr. Brooke, the chief officer of Westminster city council, the Tories went ahead and sold off the council's cemeteries for 15p. The people who bought that land resold it for £1·2 million.
In other words, the chief officer was correct to give the advice that he did. It is now suggested that that land could be sold for £5 million. If Westminster city council wants it back, it will cost its ratepayers a great deal of money. Why does the Secretary of State concentrate on attacking Labour councils, and introducing measures in the Bill for that purpose, instead of getting stuck in to Tory Westminster city council and dealing with its activities?

Mr. Ridley: I am not responsible for the activities of any particular council. If a chief officer wishes to advise his council on what is right and proper and what is not, the Bill facilitates the process that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I cannot think what more he could want.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in a newspaper article, called the Bill an
unacceptable attack on human rights".
What nonsense. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is an attack on human rights that civil servants cannot stand for parliamentary election? How would the Opposition like it if a deputy secretary in my Department were also a Conservative Member of this House? That is an intolerable thought. So we are mirroring, as far as possible, the very rules that apply for the Civil Service.

Mr. Terry Fields: As part of this attack on democracy and the disfranchisement of 70,000 people working in the Civil Service, the right hon. Gentleman has set an arbitrary figure of £13,500 a year as the salary of those who will be disfranchised. How does he reconcile that with the fact that the majority of Conservatives in this place receive more by way of handouts, dividends and so on than by way of their salaries?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the meaning of words. "Disfranchisement" means that one cannot vote. All civil servants and all council employees can vote. The Civil Service is divided into three categories—those who cannot take part in public political activities, those who can stand for council elections and those who are totally free. We are suggesting the same treatment for employees of councils, allowing the maximum number of them—not a total prohibition—who are not in politically sensitive posts to continue political activities.
We are treating council employees better than civil servants in this respect, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is groundless. If Opposition Members press their opposition to these clauses, I do not think they will find it goes down well with their constituents. The people who are most shocked by twin tracking are those who have to pay the bills to meet the salaries of those who do it.
The Bill also provides for a maximum of three staff to be attached to political groups on the council. We are now persuaded that it can be helpful—and indeed desirable—for councillors to have access to a research assistant, as is commonplace in Governments of both parties, who is able to get information, liaise with officers, obtain papers and so on. We shall be placing stringent safeguards on their use to make sure that no conflict occurs.
As I said, this House insists on the essential principle of free and fair political debate. Opposition Members have the right to put their points of view on the Floor of the House and in Committee. There is no such right for minority groups on local authority committees. In some cases, the majority party has taken too much discretion over the appointment and membership of committees. Some have excluded opposition parties altogether from key decision-taking committees. Decisions have been forced through with no public debate.
The Bill will require appointments to committees to be made pro rata to the balance of political parties on the council. It also provides that only elected members, as opposed to co-optees, will be able to vote on executive committees, the single exception being Church or other representatives where they make a major contribution to education. I am sure that the Opposition will agree that we should not be able to co-opt voting members on to our Standing Committees in this House, and the same goes for elected councillors.

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is acceptable—indeed, legally required in some aspects of local government—to have statutory co-optees who can play a prominent role, but he is taking an entirely different view to other local government activities? Why is an exception being made of magistrates, who will retain their ability to attend, and vote on the decisions and activities of, police committees?

Mr. Ridley: If we trace the history of education back through the 1944 Act, we find that it was provided largely by the Church, and many of the assets involved are Church assets. The history of this matter, which can be explored at great length in Committee, leads one to the belief that it is right that those whose assets and help is much involved in public education should be allowed still to play a part in the decision-taking process.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is not explaining the point. If it does not cause problems in education or in respect of police committees, what is the justification for taking an entirely different view in other areas, where external and co-opted expertise can make a valuable contribution to the decisions of local government committees?

Mr. Ridley: Nobody is complaining about expertise. That is certainly available. This is about people voting in committees when they have not been elected. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's question suggests that he will be moving amendments to exclude Church representatives and magistrates from voting on council committees. If he seeks to do that, he must argue his case and see how it stands up.
Part II of the Bill strengthens the hand of the Commissioner for Local Administration—the local government ombudsman—by setting specific statutory deadlines by which local authorities must respond to reports and by requiring that any decision not to comply with a local ombudsman's recommendation can be taken only by the full council.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 431 which appears on the Notice Paper today concerning the Quin family, constituents of mine who have been swindled out of £17,000 by Coventry city council, which forced them to sell the lease of their property back to the council and promptly sold it to another company for a profit of over £30,000? Will he include in the Bill powers for local authorities to be forced to take notice of the findings of maladministration by the ombudsman against them?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has every right to seek publicity for any case where he believes injustice has taken place, but I think that he would hesitate with me to make it possible for the reports of an ombudsman, whether local or national, to be, as it were, imposed on the authority. The authority—whether the Government or a council—is politically responsible, and it must take the responsibility and make its decisions. Publicity is the weapon of the local ombudsman, and we shall make sure that he has access to publicity in his findings.
Part III of the Bill gives local authorities a specific economic development power, which they have long sought and have not had before. Local authorities' efforts to boost the economic regeneration of their area are made under a confused ragbag of powers. The new power will


give these powers a simpler statutory footing and will oblige authorities to draw up an annual programme of activity in consultation with the local business community.
Part III also clarifies the scope of the discretionary spending power contained in the old section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. In future, spending under section 137 can take place only if the benefits accrue directly to the area or its inhabitants, and that benefit must be commensurate with the level of expenditure. We will also clarify the rules on where section 137 cannot be used because authorities have other powers. We will therefore change the "free twopenny rate" limit in section 137 moneys to a per capita limit in accordance with the unlamented demise of the domestic rating system.
Part IV of the Bill establishes the promised new framework of control over local authorities' borrowing and capital finance. The present capital control system has few friends. It has not delivered the Government's spending plans and it has led to the wrong distribution of spending between authorities. The new system changes the system from control of capital expenditure to control of the sources of finance. Local government has preferred the control of credit for a long time. That is what we are offering.
Under clauses 44 and 45, we will issue credit approvals to control the amount of credit that an authority can borrow. We shall be setting provisional limits three years ahead. It is right for the Government to control that as part of their management of the national economy, as I think the Opposition acknowledge.

Mr. John Redmond: I am interested to learn that the Government want to control local authorities. Does the Secretary of State agree that the House ought to be in a position to control the Executive? If so, will he seek to remove much of the regulation, and the powers that such regulation will give him, from the Bill?

Mr. Ridley: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support, as I believe I have the Opposition's support, for the control of local authority borrowing—or capital—but I do not follow the second part of his question. I always thought that the House had the powers to control the spending of the Executive. The present difficulty is that the House seems to want the Executive to spend more rather than less.
Local authorities will be free to decide to supplement their capital spending by spending from usable capital receipts and also revenue from the community charge. Clause 39 defines credit arrangements to include devices by which local authorities have obtained benefits in advance of paying for them—the so-called creative accounting devices.
Local authorities are now generating capital receipts at a rate of £4 billion a year. Receipts from the right to buy are involuntary, but I am glad that authorities have also come to realise the benefit of divesting themselves of surplus non—housing assets. They have more than trebled, from £350 million to £1,100 million, in the space of five years.
Receipts do not necessarily fall where the need to spend is greatest. The more that authorities spend them, the less there is available for needy councils to borrow, because it

is the total spend that is currently controlled. Our solution is simple. Clause 49 provides that part of capital receipts should be set aside to reduce authorities' indebtedness. Most local authority assets are financed by borrowing, and that borrowing stands at £45 billion. It is only right that, when the assets are sold, some of the proceeds should go to reduce the borrowing. We are not taking local authorities' receipts; we are simply saying that some of their receipts should be used to repay their debt.
I am aware that not all local authorities have welcomed the provisions for debt redemption. Whether their community charge payers will be of the same view is quite another matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have therefore decided to take action now to deal with two potential abuses, to ensure that nothing untoward happens to the accumulated receipts of local authorities in the period before the discipline and financial accountability of the community charge take effect.
First, we are taking administrative action to secure that capital receipts cannot be used before the start of the new system to pre-fund acquisitions or works which will take place after the end of the next financial year. This is achieved by revisions to the block borrowing approval and the general consent to the use of capital money. Secondly, we propose that the debt redemption rate applicable in the new system to disposals of stocks and shares and similar investments should be at the higher rate which we propose for capital receipts from sales of council housing. That will remove any temptation for housing receipts to be converted into non-housing receipts by being applied to the purchase of equities.
These measures will take immediate effect. To have consulted in advance would have precipitated a flood of money into prefunding arrangements, as happened in 1985 when we announced changes in the prescribed proportions. Details are being sent today to all authorities, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I do not believe that either measure will have any adverse effects on the legitimate capital programmes of local authorities, but the block borrowing approval and the general consent will apply only for the remainder of this financial year and my right hon. Friend and I will be consulting on what should replace them. During the consultation period, as at any other time, local authorities will be able to apply for specific approvals or consents if any unintended consequences of the measures do arise.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way, which is appreciated.
Why should not these matters be left to be decided locally? If the Secretary of State insists that local authorities pay off debt, they will save some interest. It is more than possible, however, that investing money from the sale of council houses would earn them more in profit than the interest that they would have saved by redeeming debt. For example, they could put the money into building new housing to save bed-and-breakfast costs, which would represent a better business deal.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that Governments, inluding the Government of which he was a member, have always considered it necessary to control local authorities' total capital spending. He may argue that we have controlled it too tightly, but I could argue that in


the 1970s the Labour Government controlled it a good deal more tightly. That is not to say, however, that the mechanisms of control should not be provided, and that is what the Bill does.

Mr. Clive Soley: Has the Secretary of State forgotten that in 1980 the same Tory party that now governs the country told local authorities that they would be able to spend their capital receipts on housing? Has he also forgotten that the London Boroughs Association and the Association of District Councils—both Conservative-controlled—are opposed to his proposals?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us whether money will be taken from a house subject to a compulsory purchase order and put into debt repayment?

Mr. Ridley: In 1980, the hon. Gentleman and I probably under-estimated the enormous success of the right to buy, and did not anticipate that local authorities would now be receiving about £4 billion a year in capital. His party's Government could not turn a blind eye to the economic effects of sums of that size, any more than this Government can.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My right hon. Friend said earlier that he wished to encourage local authorities to repay their debt, and I certainly support that. But will he clarify the position of local authorities that use their capital receipts to finance internal lending, and therefore to avoid additional debt? Will they be able to continue doing that?

Mr. Ridley: They can do as they will. If they avoid internal lending, it is, in many respects, equivalent to repaying debt. What we will control is the amount of new borrowing. Authorities with high receipts and high spending power from those receipts will clearly be less in need of new borrowing than others.
My officials will continue to monitor local authority expenditure carefully during the months ahead, and I shall not hesitate to take further action if necessary.

Dr. Cunningham: May I ask a question relating to the reply that the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones)? Is he saying that, in the event of internal transfer of the use of capital receipts by local authorities, such a transaction will be excluded from the Bill?

Mr. Ridley: If a local authority sells an asset, it will have to use the prescribed proportion to repay the debt—either 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. It will be able to use the balance to invest in spheres other than that from which it came. There is no control over the vires.
Part V of the Bill introduces a statutory framework for local authority-controlled or influenced companies. The Widdicombe committee recommended that local authority companies should be set up only where there was specific enabling legislation, but we do not wish to do anything to prevent beneficial local authority involvement in companies.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend put a proper Conservative stamp on this part of the Bill by ensuring that, when local authorities compulsorily purchase a property. they pay the full market value? Perhaps he will bear in mind the firm promise given to the Bolton, Bury and district landlords association that

the present injustice in the legislation would be put right in the Bill, so that landlords would be given every incentive to provide homes for rent?

Mr. Ridley: An amendment will be moved in Committee to deal with those points. I am sorry that the provision is not already in the Bill: it simply was not drafted in time.
Part VI provides for the reform of local authority housing finance. We have three objectives: to improve the financial discipline of councils and their accountability to their tenants, to ensure that the money provided by the national taxpayer goes where it is really needed and to encourage council rents, over time, to come to bear more resemblance to the real world. Councils will not, with some exceptions, be able to transfer money between the housing revenue account and the rest of their funds, and vice versa. This is called ring fencing.
Broadly speaking, only landlord expenditure will be charged to the housing revenue account. Expenditure on facilities shared with the wider community, or on such social services as wardens for sheltered housing, will either be outside the ring fence or receive a contribution across it. As a result, both tenants and charge payers will get a clear picture of the services they receive and the charges they pay for them.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: I have given way to every hon. Gentleman who sought to intervene. However, if I continue to do so, I shall speak rather longer that I had intended.

Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State's generosity is extremely helpful to hon. Members on both sides of the House. He mentioned ring fencing. Who will bear the cost of maintaining housing waiting lists which are not solely for the purpose of the tenants but involve the wider community, such as owner-occupiers who may find themselves homeless? It would be unfair if the cost of maintaining the housing waiting list were taken solely from the housing revenue account.

Mr. Ridley: A number of costs—and that may well be one of them—should be outside the ring fence and borne by the wider community, particularly when they have a wider social implication beyond the management of the housing stock. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the precise dividing line should be the subject of consultation and discussion in Committee so that we fix it in the right place.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I do not often intervene in the speeches of the Secretary of State, but my understanding of the ring fence is that the housing revenue account would not be able to subsidise the general rate fund account and the general rate fund account would not be able to subsidise the housing revenue account. However, if the housing revenue account is in surplus, will that surplus be allowed to be added to the general rate fund?

Mr. Ridley: I am coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain it precisely.
Clause 68 provides for the new housing revenue account subsidy which replaces three subsidies: the present housing subsidy, the subsidy paid by the Department of Social Security towards rent rebates and the support given


towards housing expenditure through the rate support grant. We will be consulting the local authority associations, but the main elements of the new system will be an assessment of what each authority needs to spend on management, repairs and debt service; and an assumption, as at present, about the amount of each authority's rent income.
The subsidy, from the taxpayers, will be paid to meet the difference between the assessed need to spend and the notional rental income. Efficient authorities will be able to balance the ring-fenced account and provide a good standard of service at a reasonable rent. But inefficiency, rent arrears and waste will not be subsidised by the national taxpayer or the community charge payer. In answer to the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), where the rent income exceeds the costs, the subsidy will be reduced by a corresponding amount. Therefore, there will be no gainers and no losers. Where there is a loss on the housing revenue account, the taxpayers will make up the difference; where there is a surplus, the taxpayers will take the credit. It is perfectly fair and balanced.
Like its predecessors, the new subsidy must contain a mechanism for affecting rents. Therefore, I propose to say a few words about rents, if only to stop the Opposition claiming that we are about to double or treble council house rents. If people believed that, the result would be a doubling or trebling of right-to-buy sales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to avoid anything as democratic as that. However, it is not true.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the fact that some councils have a very bad reputation for collecting rents. If they do not collect those rents, they have to get the money from somewhere. My right hon. Friend says that it will not come from the general taxpayer. I presume that it will not come from the general community charge payer, so is it going to come from the other rent payers within that local authority area?

Mr. Ridley: Yes.

Mr. John Fraser: People complain that some local authorities have very large rent arrears. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that some local authorities have huge rent arrears which are probably irrecoverable? One of the difficulties of rate capping and penalties is that, if local authorities write off irrecoverable rent arrears, as any commercial business would do, that counts as expenditure. If the Secretary of State presses ahead with his reforms, would it not be right to have an amnesty for irrecoverable rent arrears and to start with a clean slate?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's point hardly arises from the Bill, but some Labour authorities in very difficult parts of London have remarkably good records in avoiding rent arrears, while others have equally bad records. It is a question of management and councils could make great improvements up to the level of the best. The way in which the power in the Bill is designed gives them an incentive to do so. As for the allowances made for

irretrievable rent arrears in the process of rate limitation, the hon. Gentleman should await the final details of our decision on that.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the councillors' code of conduct should include recommendations about councillors who owe very large sums in rent and rates arrears? The vice-chairman of the Lambeth borough housing committee—the hon. Member for Norwood's own borough—owes more than £2,000 in rent and rate arrears, having collected £28,000 in council allowance.

Mr. Ridley: Such things are most regrettable, but I have to remind my hon. Friend that hon. Members have owed similar amounts of money to the Refreshment Department.
The present pattern of council house rents has no logical justification. In the first place, much council stock was built many years ago, when costs were low. Under present practice, councils carry their properties on their books only at the cost of servicing their historic debts. Those whose rents cover only historic debt charges plus maintenance are keeping rents unrealistically low. Rents also differ between councils according to their political prejudices, with differing subsidies paid from the rates. Rents ought to have some regard to the size and quality of a house or flat, to the local environment and so on. Some authorities already allow for that in setting rents between dwellings, but others pay far too little attention to it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
The results of those muddled arrangements are no longer acceptable. People cannot make sensible judgments about where to live, or in what tenure sector. Where the resultant rents are low, they have been yielding insufficient resources to provide for repairs, replacement and improvement.
The Bill will take the anomalies out of the present arrangements. For example, since we published our proposals last summer, we have consistently said that in setting council rents more account should be taken of what a property is worth.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Ridley: We are not talking about sudden massive rent increases; we are talking about rents which progressively reflect more closely the relative worth of different council houses, without hidden subsidies from the rates or from a system of accounting which bears no relationship to the real world. My proposals would mean that, over time, there would be a gradual elimination of the wide variation in rents between neighbouring authorities, which has more to do with history or political opportunism than with the efficient provision of a housing service. Rents will begin to move towards a reflection of the varying costs of housing—in terms of size and quality, and of amenity.
Those authorities which have already followed sensible rent policies will not be greatly affected by these arrangements. The result will be wider choice, fairer competition and a better, more accountable service to council tenants.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I said that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Banks: I thought that the Secretary of State was going to plunge on to the end of his speech. May I bring him back to the point that people have lived on certain estates for so many years that they have covered the historic costs of those estates? Will they now be able to live there free, since they have already paid for the places in which they live? The Secretary of State said that there will be a move to market rents over a period of time. What period of time is he talking about?

Mr. Ridley: First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has advised such people that they should have exercised the right to buy and that they can still do so, thereby avoiding the trap of paying rent for a lifetime and ending up owning nothing.
Secondly—what was the hon. Gentleman's second point?

Mr. Banks: How long does the Secretary of State envisage it will be before we move towards market rents?

Mr. Ridley: I never said that we were moving towards market rents. I said that we were moving towards a closer relationship with a property's value. That is a very different matter, as I made quite clear. If the hon. Gentleman had listened instead of jumping up and down, he would have heard that I carefully avoided any reference to market rents.
The last major reform in the Bill is the reform of the system of help that is provided for private owners and tenants in poor-condition property. This occurs in parts VII and VIII, together with the clauses in part IX and schedule 8.
I am delighted that we have increased home ownership to more than two thirds of all households. We now need to concentrate our efforts and the sizeable sums involved on owners who cannot afford to put their properties right. It is a bad use of scarce resources to assist people who can improve their houses without assistance. Resources should be targeted on the properties that are unfit and on the people who cannot afford the cost of essential work.
The Bill provides for a new basic standard of fitness. If a property falls below that standard on any single item, it will be considered unfit and a local authority have have a duty to act on it either by renovation or clearance. We intend to amend the Bill so that, where clearance is the reasonable course, market value compensation will be available to those displaced. Where renovation is preferred, local authorities will be required to see that the property is brought up to standard, often with grant aid but sometimes without it, if the owner or tenant can afford to do so.
The Bill provides for help with a range of other types of work designed to prevent a slide into serious disrepair or to make conditions more comfortable for the occupant. That help will be discretionary, and grant will again be subject to a test of the owner's resources.
This will enable us to give more generous help to those least able to afford the costs of necessary work—not just people on income support or housing benefit, but those on higher incomes too. Local authorities will also be empowered to provide and subsidise agency services that assist elderly and lower income households.

Mr. John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has reversed the proposition in the 1987 consultation document, which was that owners of properties being adapted for disabled people should not be subject to a resource test? He now proposes that they should. Will he reconsider the matter? I hope that he will accept that adapting houses for disabled people does not necessarily increase their value, as ordinary adaptations might. If the owners of such properties were subjected to a means test, that would ran counter to the general care-in-the-community and independent living proposals and adversely affect disabled people.

Mr. Ridley: I should not like to misinform my hon. Friend, and I would prefer to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to answer that point properly in his wind-up speech. I should hate to give the wrong answer.
We intend to introduce amendments at an early stage to enable authorities to provide three other important variants on the renovation grants provided in part VIII. They will provide for mandatory and discretionary grants to assist people who are disabled with adaptations to their homes; an entirely new minor works grant that will enable local authorities to fund insulation work and other minor works of repair and improvement that might enable an elderly person to remain in his or her home; and support for owners of houses in multiple occupation and the common parts of mansion blocks.
A more concerted effort is needed to improve housing where whole areas are run down. Part VII of the Bill rationalises the existing machinery for promoting area improvements. We shall introduce, again on amendment, measures to enable authorities to repair and improve whole groups or terraces of houses, based on the enveloping and block repair schemes that have had such a beneficial effect in many areas.
The rest of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions—none of great significance. That also goes for clause 124, which is the enabling power for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts to authorise library authorities to charge for certain facilities, while protecting the free lending of books. We do not intend to let local authorities extend the use of charges to other than a few minor services, so Opposition Members can relax.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ridley: For the last time.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend is aware of a significant problem in local government. He also said that this was the last Bill that he would bring forward. He will be aware that the RSPCA has highlighted the problem of stray dogs and the increasing problems of filth and disease that they cause in our environment. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that he will bring forward measures—if not in the Bill, by another means—to enable local authorities to tackle this seething pestilence now affecting our urban areas in particular?

Mr. Ridley: I did not say that this was the last Bill ever. I said that it completes the reforms that we set out at the beginning of this Parliament. I note what my hon. Friend says about the menace of stray and dirty dogs and I share his extreme concern. However, I do not think that the matter can be included in the Bill, nor am I clear what


legislative measure is required. The question is what to do about the menace—there is no difference between us as to its existence.

Mr. Fraser: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I said that I had given way for the last time. I must continue.
The Bill completes the framework for local government into the 1990s and beyond. Accountability will be enhanced, efficiency improved and the available public sector resources targeted where they can be of greatest benefit. Already, there are encouraging signs that local authorities are responding to the new competitive era, tackling restrictive practices and bringing their services into line with what their customers and electors want. The Bill will give further encouragement to the progressive elements in local government that are reforming and regenerating it from within. I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: At least I can begin by agreeing with the Secretary of State on one point—that this is the 50th local government Bill in a decade of Conservative Government. That in itself is an admission of the Government's failure to get their local government policies right. Presumably, the Bill comes to the House on the principle, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
In presenting those 50 Bills, Conservative Secretaries of State have presented at least 50 different views—not only to Parliament but to the people of this country—on how to tackle some of the most deep-seated problems in our urban communities and rural areas. The fact that, after a decade of Conservative Government, we still have those problems shows the slow learning abilities of successive Conservative Ministers. The Bill has all the hallmarks of its successors, or rather predecessors—[Interruption.]—and its successors too, no doubt. It contains the flawed, partial and dogmatic judgments of the Secretary of State. The Government have reached their half century of local government Bills without any sense of celebration in local government—in fact, quite the reverse. These measures are the latest in a major series of attacks on the freedom, the flexibility and the democratic accountability of local government.
The Bill is a ragbag of bureaucratic, nitpicking, central controls, the principle theme of which is, yet again, to give the Secretary of State further powers to impose his flawed judgments on local communities and their elected councils. The Bill incorporates a series of disgraceful attacks on specific groups in the community—on council tenants, whom it proposes to tax, on first-time home buyers and on users of community services. The proposals are intended to force up rents and end schemes for assistance to first-time home buyers at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. The Bill gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers, despite what he has said today, to impose charges for local authority services. It even contains an attack on the democratic rights of thousands of local government staff. Council house tenants will be forced to subsidise the poll tax and housing benefit. That is the implication of the ring-fencing of housing revenue

accounts. The Government intend to force the less well-off in society to subsidise the least well-off, and to subsidise the very well-off, too.
The height of a housing and homelessness crisis is not the time to announce restrictions on the availability of home improvement grants. Many families hoping or planning to modernise and improve their homes will have their hopes crushed by these proposals. The promises and assurances of four successive Secretaries of State about the freedom of councils to use capital receipts from the sales of their own assets are reneged on by these proposals. The enforced repayment of councils' borrowing will mean a major loss of capital investment opportunities to provide housing, economic development, and recreational and leisure facilities.
There are further proposals to restrict the freedom of councils to promote local investment and economic development. The skills and ingenuity of the City of London are to be denied to local government, although they are freely used for the rationalisation of industry and commerce with consequent job losses. They are allowed in that application but not to help local authorities to be more effective in tackling local problems.
There is even a proposal in this legislation to allow the Secretary of State to create a political vetting office in Whitehall in respect of the activities of local government officers. The message to local electors in county council elections is: "Don't vote for a Conservative party intent on undermining and destroying local democracy and creating further financial burdens for those people who can least afford them."

Mr. David Nicholson: Would the hon. Gentleman describe the Widdicombe report, which the Bill principally implements, as undermining local democracy?

Dr. Cunningham: I am coming to that very point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully.
The Secretary of State began by trying to sell the Bill as a solution to, and indeed an attack on, so-called twin-tracking and other alleged abuses at town halls, and as an effort to make local government more accountable to local people, but in most of its provisions the Bill does exactly the opposite. It increases Government control and gives the Secretary of State wide powers to use regulations not in the Bill, rather than primary legislation, to make local government toe central Government lines regardless of local people's preferences. Those are the principles running through the Bill.
The Secretary of State says that the legislation will stop what he and others have described as "jobs for the boys". Let us examine what the Widdicombe inquiry, which the Opposition welcomed when it was established, actually had to say about these matters. That is the only hard evidence on which to base any conclusion. The Widdicombe committee said:
Local authority employees therefore are not significantly over-represented among councillors.
In fact, it is an attack on the civil liberties of thousands of council employees to support the proposals in this Bill. Not only will they be banned from serving as councillors on any local authority, but they will be banned from involvement in a range of political activities to be decided by the Secretary of State by regulation.
It is not just a matter of saying that people cannot stand for office. They may also be prevented from holding office in political parties, commenting publicly on matters of


party political controversy, canvassing in local elections, and other activities. Moreover. the politically restricted posts will not stop at chief executives, chief officers and their deputies, for which there is a case—anyone earning £13,500 or more per year will be caught by the proposals.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that double standards are being operated by the Tory Government and their supporters, who will undoubtedly file into the Lobby tonight to support this Bill although more than 150 Tory Back Benchers have moonlighting jobs as well as being Members of Parliament earning £24,000 per year? The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), with four extra jobs, comes readily to mind.

Mr. Tony Banks: Though not regularly to the House.

Mr. Skinner: It is a scandal that people who are making money on the side are telling those in local government that they cannot democratically serve the electors in their area because they have a job with another local authority? If the Government want that to apply to people in local government, why do they not apply it to their own Back Benchers?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is right. The Bill is replete with proposals which show the two-faced nature of the Government in these matters. The Government will say that people can apply to be exempted from these restrictions and the Bill says that the Secretary of State may appoint a person to consider such applications and appeals, but it is not mandatory for him to do so. As drafted, the Bill will give one person—the Secretary of State—power to remove the civil liberties and democratic rights of a wide range of local government workers. It diminishes rather than enhances local democracy.

Mr. John Maples: The hon. Member is being somewhat disingenuous. What happens is not that someone who is a local government officer decides to get elected to a council somewhere else and the Bill stops him—what happens is that people are elected to one council and then given jobs by another council to enable them to conduct their politics for free.

Dr. Cunningham: That is not what the evidence in the Widdicombe report showed. It is obvious, I hope, that people employed in local government will bring their experience to bear on matters of local government policy in their work as councillors, but that is equally true for other people who are allowed to be councillors. Farmers bring their experience and interests to bear, as do builders, industrialists, architects, lawyers and estate agents, to name just some of the people with working backgrounds which might be thought, like local government itself, to raise conflicts of interest.
In the Labour party's evidence to Widdicombe, we recognised that there was a level at which inescapable conflicts would arise. We accepted that that was so, and we said that we thought it inadvisable for people at the level of chief officer and above to be councillors in neighbouring authorities. The proposals in the Bill go way beyond that and way beyond the conclusions that Widdicombe reached.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I will put a very simple case. If the hon. Gentleman, like me, had children at school in the state

sector and wanted to ask advice from a local government officer about the education of his children, would he be entirely happy if that local government officer was a well-known, Right-wing, Conservative member of another local council whose views on education were deeply offensive to the hon. Gentleman? Surely any ratepayer has the right to believe that when he consults a local government officer he consults an independent person arid not somebody actively involved in politics.

Dr. Cunningham: I have had the experience that the Minister described, but it was on the other side of the political spectrum. I did not object to the fact that I was advised about education by someone who was a prominent member of another political party. Why should I? We are supposed to be living in a. plural, democratic society.
The Widdicombe report was published in June 1986.
Paragraph 6.29 on page 1 1 1 says:
Local authority employees therefore are not significantly over-represented among councillors.
Paragraph 6.33 says:
We believe that senior officers should not be politically active, and as a consequence should not be councillors. Accordingly we shall be recommending that senior officers should be statutorily disqualified from being councillors".
The proposals, however, do not apply to senior officers. A local government employee who is earning as little as 13,500 cannot be described these days as a senior officer. The proposals apply to the middle and junior ranks of local government administration. Ministers know that very well indeed.

Mr. Tony Banks: As my hon. Friend was asked for an example by the Minister, I will remind him of one not a million miles from the House. When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was a senior officer of the Greater London council, he was also the chair of a committee of his own council. He was also a Member of Parliament for a time as well as a senior officer of the Greater London council. The Labour party did not make a fuss about that and the Labour Government certainly did not consider introducing legislation to prevent it.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right.
The Government's response, to the Widdicombe report
was published in July 1988. In paragraph 5.20 of their response the Government said:
The Government share, however, the almost universal doubts expressed about the Committee's proposal that the relevant group should be defined as 'Principal Officer' and above. This level is generally criticised as being too low for a blanket ban on political activity. It would affect some 70,000 staff many of whom, especially those in technical posts, may have little or no contact with members.
That was the Government's response to the Widdicombe report less than a year ago. They said that such a blanket ban was unacceptable, yet they have written exactly that ban into the Bill. What has changed since the Widdicombe committee investigated these matters and reported? In line with that, there were many more critical comments in the Government's response to the Widdicombe report.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, not for the moment.
I will give a practical example to illustrate what will happen to people. Councillor Simon Oelman is a 28-year-old councillor in Greenwich. He has been a councillor for about three years and he is the


vice-chairman of the health and environmental services committee. He is an estates officer with Southwark borough council and earns just over £12,000 a year. He is in the £12,000 to £14,000 per year group. His pay rises by approximately four annual increments, so he is not yet paid more than the lower limit in the Bill—but in a couple of years he will be. If he were doing the same job outside London, his pay would come nowhere near that ceiling. That is also nonsense. The Bill will apply differently to officers doing the same work in different authorities, depending on location.
Councillor Oelman is allowed by Southwark 12 days' paid leave per year for council duties. Nine months ago he was a Civil Service executive officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where he was allowed 18 days paid leave and 18 days unpaid leave for his council duties, so he was given better treatment as a Government employee than as a local government employee.

Mr Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, not at the moment.
What kind of justice is that? What kind of rationale can possibly explain that kind of nonsense? The Secretary of State says that the Bill is necessary. If it is necessary for councillors and local government officials, why was it not necessary when Councillor Oelman worked in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Richard Holt: I take the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he therefore disagree with Middlesbrough borough council, whose personnel officer was elected a county councillor and immediately given complete sabbatical leave indefinitely?

Dr. Cunningham: On balance, on most occasions I would far sooner agree with the Labour-controlled Middlesbrough council than with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's proposals are nonsensical, discriminatory and perverse in their application. The Government are aiming at the wrong target. They should be introducing legislation to encourage more people to offer themselves as candidates for local government service. They should not be discouraging them, as these proposals do.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Dr. Cunningham: No.
Part III deals with economic development. The Bill introduces a specific power to prevent local government from becoming involved in some of the economic development work that it now does in a bid to boost jobs locally, especially in the inner cites and urban areas. The powers outlined in clause 25 seem reasonable at first sight, but again the detail will be left to regulations imposed by the Secretary of State so Parliament will have little, if any, proper time in which to debate and scrutinise the proposals. The Bill treats economic development and local

authority companies as totally separate issues, despite the efforts of local authority associations of all political convictions to convince the Government otherwise. Desperately needed local jobs often depend on both, and a serious of unanswered questions remain about those aspects of the Bill—as they do about the Secretary of State's proposals regarding capital receipts.
Local authorities are likely to have less than six months to plan for the radical new system to control their capital finance that part IV of the Bill foreshadows. Under the current control system, local authorities are free to spend all their capital receipts, over time, to finance capital expenditure on new building repairs. The only restriction is on the pace at which their capital receipts are spent. Under the new system, however, councils will be forced to use their capital receipts—75 per cent. of housing capital receipts and 50 per cent. of other receipts—to repay loans.
That means that the Government have reneged on the promise given by a previous Secretary of State, that receipts would be available in full, over time, to finance additional capital expenditure. He said:
The receipts are and will remain the property of local authorities. They can spend them in future years"— [Official Report, 19 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 308.]
That is what Lord Patrick Jenkin said in December 1984 to the House. That was the commitment that he gave and the promise that he made to local authorities when the controls were introduced. That promise about accumulated receipts was recognised in the Government's 1986 Green Paper "Paying for Local Government". Paragraph 6.40 says:
Local authorities have been given the assurance that this amount will be available in full over time to justify additional capital expenditure.
That is the kind of promise and commitment that has been given to this House and then ratted on time and again by Conservative Secretaries of State for the Environment.
We even have the bizarre proposal in clause 5 requiring local authorities to appoint a "monitoring officer"-what the Secretary of State, in his press release, called a whistleblower. The press release said:
The Bill will stop councils appointing political henchmen to key officer posts, whose independence is vital. It also enables Chief Executives to blow the whistle on suspect decisions.
So there is to be a kind of statutory sneak—no doubt a hangover from the Secretary of State's experiences as a fag at Eton.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was my fag at Eton.

Dr. Cunningham: It is interesting to contemplate the business before the House this week and the direction in which the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends are facing: they are facing in all directions at once. In the Official Secrets Bill it is made abundantly clear that there is no public interest duty—none at all—and no room for any whistleblowers in the Civil Service. The Government do not feel the need even to let people deploy, as a defence, the fact that they believe that something criminal or against the national interest was happening. In the case of the Official Secrets Bill, that is ruled out as a defence for civil servants. Yet in local government, where committees meet in public, where the membership of committees is published, where the press are admitted, and where there is already far more openness, it is felt necessary to appoint someone with a statutory duty to blow the whistle.
In the very same week in which all this is going on, the chief executive of Westminster city council has just been paid £1 million for not blowing the whistle. How does the Secretary of State explain all this? How can he explain to his hon. Friends, whom he will invite to go through the Lobby with him tonight, that there should be a statutorily appointed person to blow the whistle when he is taking no action on the Westminster city council debacle? Clearly, the Secretary of State is facing every way at once. It is a classic example of the Government's naked hypocrisy that in the very week in which they are legislating these proposals for local government officers they are taking an entirely different view in respect of their own people, civil servants and Tory councillors in Westminster.

Mr. Robert Adley: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being here at the beginning of his speech. I was on a Select Committee.
As a Westminster ratepayer, I rather share his view about the recent activities there. I hope that he can find it in his heart to agree with me that one good thing about the Bill is that it should enable us, for the first time, to set up a register of councillors' interests. There is a great deal of concern about planning activities and, in particular, about the interests of councillors either as consultants or as professional advisers to planners. Does the hon. Gentleman share with me the hope that through this legislation we can beef up the existing safeguards?

Dr. Cunningham: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the goings-on in the neighbourhood of his constituency in Dorset—if those are the events to which he is referring—among developers, planners and Conservative councillors. But they already have a duty under the law to register their interests. In any case, it is only proper that they should register any interest as well as declaring it when involved in any decision.
As the Secretary of State is so concerned about the public interest in this matter, may I ask him whose interests are being served by the Conservative Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster city council, paying El million to keep the departing chief executive quiet? Whose interests are being served in that case? I put it to the Secretary of State that the interests of the Tory party are being served at the expense of the ratepayer.

Mr. Ridley: When Mr. Reg Race parted company with Derbyshire county council, no doubt he received his compensation entitlement under the Superannuation Act 1972. I understand that that is all that has been offered by Westminster city council. The only difference is that Derbyshire county council will not tell us how much it paid, whereas Westminster will.

Dr. Cunningham: I almost regret to say that I do not think there is any chance that Reg Race will keep quiet about what went on in Derbyshire, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, since I have here a copy of the contract that has been drawn up between Lady Porter and Mr. Rodney Brooke, that Mr. Race did not sign any contracts like this. He did not make any commitments like this commitment not to say anything about what has been going on in Westminster city council all this time.
The Secretary of State has always been all too eager to criticise, abuse and insult local councillors, particularly those on Labour authorities, but in the case of the Tory Westminster city council he is paralysed into inactivity and

silence. He averts his gaze, although if he looks out of his window in Marsham street he can see Westminster city hall in Victoria street. Perhaps he dare not even open the windows in case the stench gets into his office.

Mr. Frank Dobson: He has a lifelong duty of silence.

Dr. Cunningham: Yes.
These matters are treated with great levity when the Tory party is involved, but the Tories take a very different view of much more minor activities in many of the Labour London boroughs. At a dinner recently a civil servant was asked, "Do civil servants ever really tell jokes?" He replied, po-faced, "No, it is too risky, and it is not necessary—we simply observe Ministers and report the facts."

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if any Labour-controlled local authority were being run in the corrupt way in which Westminster city council is being run, virtually every Tory Member of Parliament would be calling on the Government to ensure that the administration of the area was placed in the hands of someone from the central authority? Does he agree that, even apart from the cemeteries and the hush-money contracts to which he alluded, Lady Porter has shown herself to be totally disqualified not just to be the leader of a local authority but even to be a member?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I repeat that the Secretary of State has duties and responsibilities to the ratepayers of Westminster. He should either act to set up an extraordinary audit or institute a public inquiry into what has been going on there.
He rushes to judgment elsewhere, but if even one of his rich and influential Tory friends seems threatened the Tory establishment closes ranks with a louder clang than the slamming of the gates of hell. That is what has happened in the case of Westminster city council. It is a scandal, and the Secretary of State should act to put an end to it.
As for the housing aspects of the Bill, the Government's policy and the attitude of the Secretary of State are a national disgrace. The right hon. Gentleman may remember saying to the House:
Everyone should be able to afford a home, and we will continue to ensure that no one need be homeless because he cannot afford a home. There are problems, but they are not the result of a lack of resources or an overall shortage of housing."—[Official Report. 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 183]?
That was two years ago. Since then, the housing situation has continued to deteriorate for millions of our fellow citizens.
There is a stark contrast between the Government's aims and objectives and proposals in the Bill. Policy, generally, is intended to end the role of local government in housing. The reality of housing misery for millions of families and the disgraceful inefficiency with which the Government spend taxpayers' money on housing, as set out in the recent Audit Commission report, ought to shame the Secretary of State, as should the complete omission from the Government's expenditure plans, published in January, of any reference to homelessness or waiting lists. Those words do not appear anywhere in the blue book, Cm. 609, because the Government want to pretend that the problems do not exist.
The Government maintain that pretence at a time when there are 10 times as many people homeless as there were


when "Cathy Comes Home" troubled the nation's conscience two decades ago. At the latest count, some 116,000 families are homeless. Meanwhile, the number of available lettings continues to decline and the number of new council homes has dropped by four fifths, while the use of temporary accommodation has jumped by six times in six years. Homelessness has been increasing over a long time, across all types of authority, in different regions, under all types of political control and with widely varying housing policies. The Government's responsibilities are the root cause of all that.
Let us consider what has happened to mortgage payers. Last year, the average advance in Great Britain was £36,164. In January 1988, the average net monthly payment was £290.76. It had increased by £81.29 by January of this year. People looking for a home to rent or to buy are crushed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that he has no sympathy, and the Secretary of State , who says that he has no intention of allowing local authorities to build more houses to meet those needs and problems.
I will give the Secretary of State an example from my constituency surgery a few days ago. A married couple and their child came to see me. They had bought their council house six year ago but had finally had to give it up. They simply could not afford the mortgage repayments any longer. When the Secretary of State came to Copeland borough in my constituency he made it clear that Copeland did not need to build any more council houses. Where does that leave that family? Where can they go? To whom can they turn for help? That is a dramatic example of the human misery resulting from the Government's housing policies.
The Audit Commission report, which was most timely, included a graph illustrating the rise in homelessness under the Government's policies. The Audit Commission said that the cost implications of the escalating use of bed and breakfast are serious. The true gross cost, including authorities which do not complete statistical returns, may well be in excess of £90 million for 1986–87, and in 1987–88 the true cost in London alone was £125 million.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Gentleman did not tell us that the Audit Commission report also said that if some authorities, mainly Labour, got their houses back into circulation more quickly, by cutting the repair time to two and a half weeks, there would be 20,000 houses available for rent. The hon. Gentleman referred to a selected point; he should give us the rest.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed, because I am coming to exactly that point in a moment.
At the end of September last year, more than 11,000 homeless households had been placed in bed-andbreakfast hotels by local authorities. In some authorities, families face the prospect of months, or even years, living in hotel rooms. It is now widely accepted that bed-and-breakfast hotels provide generally the worst standard of accommodation at the highest cost, and that conditions in these establishments are totally unsuitable for family life.
A family has to live in one room without chairs or tables for meals, sharing bathrooms and toilets, often on

different floors, used by many families at the same time. Parents have no privacy. Children have nowhere to play or to do their homework. Families' health, particularly that of children and pregnant women, clearly suffers. These problems are compounded if families are placed in a hotel away from their home area since access to schools, social services and medical care is disrupted.
The problem of large numbers of families placed outside their home areas is concentrated in London, where around 70 per cent. of households—more than 5,000 families—in bed-and-breakfast are placed outside their own borough. The financial costs of keeping homeless people in bed-and-breakfast hotels are very high. The estimated annual cost of keeping a family in bed and breakfast accommodation in 1986–87 ranged from just over £5,000 in non-metropolitan districts to £11,000 in London. The precise costs vary. We must compare that with the average cost to a local authority of building a new home at about £7,500 per annum, a far more cost-effective, efficient and better solution for everyone and a far more caring approach for any Government to want to take—that is, any Government but the present one, with the present Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) referred to vacant properties. It is a recurring myth for Conservative Members to lay the blame for these problems at the door of local government. As the Audit Commission points out, the highest vacancy rate of any tenure group in England, at 6 per cent., was a Government Department, not a local authority. The Audit Commission made the point that the Government, if they really cared about these matters, would literally—to use an apt phrase—get their own houses in order instead of wasting the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. It is true that 2·5 per cent. of local authority dwellings remain unoccupied, but we should compare that with 2·7 per cent. of housing association dwellings and 4·1 per cent. of private sector dwellings. Local government has the best record. I agree that it is not necessarily an acceptable record, but it is a better record than that of Government Departments or housing associations.
Again, the Audit Commission says that the Department of Environment should take the initiative in seeking means to ensure that where such properties are vacant, and not for sale, they are made available for leasing to local authorities and housing associations. One way of encouraging better use would be for the accounting systems of all public sector landlords to show clearly the costs of maintaining void properties. Here we have an indication of the double standards of Government; at present the Ministry of Defence and the Metropolitan police systems of finance do not show the cost to the ratepayer and the taxpayer of keeping houses empty. In addition, public bodies should bear the true cost of leaving properties vacant and should repay the financial benefits of bringing them into use.
There is much more to talk about in the Bill and there is much more of it that we oppose. I have made the point once, but I make it again, that we fundamentally oppose the new housing finance proposals which will require council house tenants effectively to pay an additional tax to subsidise the poll tax and housing benefit. That is a major departure from the policy followed by all previous Governments. [Interruption.] The Minister of State says that he does not understand that. I should like to think that I have got it wrong, but I assure him that I have not


because that is the view of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and of all the local authority associations, and it is a direct consequence of the proposals in the Bill.
Against that background, it is a disgrace that the White Paper should show that gross capital expenditure on housing is set to fall. In 1988–89 there will be a fall of 19 per cent—almost one fifth-compared with the financial year 1987–88. In 1989–90 and 1990–91 there will be further falls, and it is projected that by 1991–92 the existing total gross capital expenditure on housing will have been reduced by 27 per cent. How can the Government justify that manic obsession with reducing public investment in housing at a time when so many families desperately need help?
Even the voluntary organisations feel threatened by the proposals in the Bill, and the changes in the law which will threaten their funding. The Secretary of State is well-known as being an admirer of the American system of local government. He should look at what the Sunday newspapers were saying last weekend about the depths of decline in social policy in the city of New York. If the right hon. Gentleman so admires the American approach to local services, he should learn from what is happening to people in the inner cities and urban areas of too many towns and cities in America.
After 10 years of continuous office and an uninterrupted barrage of legislation on local community affairs, the Secretary of State can have no excuses. I regret to say that there is no evidence that he and his ministerial colleagues have learnt any lessons at all. We have no confidence in the Secretary of State wanting to understand the real circumstances faced by millions of his fellow citizens. His attitudes are as ugly as his proposals—neither are acceptable in a fair and civilised society.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the situation in America. It is significant that he picked on New York, which has been a problem city for decades. I noted that he made no reference to the successful redevelopments in the inner-city part of Boston, which would be a credit to any local authority. In the same way that the hon. Gentleman was somewhat selective over his quotations from the Audit Commission, so he was in his comparisons of New York and of American local government in general.
The Bill falls into two parts—housing and local government. I hope that the Bill will bring to an end the injustice, which has been growing more noticeable in the past 20 years, in the balance between the ratepayer and the council house tenant. The ratepayer has been asked to pay a larger and larger proportion of the cost of local authority housing, while far too many local authorities have taken no notice of the advice from the district auditor and have set their rent levels well below any sensible figure. What is proposed will in the long run prove to be much fairer and much more acceptable to council tenants.
If rents go up, I believe that the council tenants have every right to demand that the maintenance of their properties is improved. In my constituency, the London borough of Camden is a byword for incompetence and the neglect of tenants. That local authority's main excuse is that it has no money to do the work. It overlooks the fact

that it has £14 million of rent arrears, that it paid more than £1 million for bed-and-breakfast accommodation that was never occupied, and, as a direct result of a failure to set the rate just over two years ago, it lost £2 million. The district auditor criticised it strongly, but did not have the courage to act. There was £17 million that could have been used to repair council properties.
The tenants who contact me are desperately angry at the conditions under which they must live. My advice to them is that they would certainly be better off buying their accommodation under the right to buy if it were not for the fact that 2,000 cases in Camden are beyond the statutory period and that valuations are deliberately inflated. When, on my advice, those tenants go for redetermination of those values, reductions of more than 10 per cent. are almost always achieved. They would be better off, too, under my right hon. Friend's proposals on co-operatives or in being managed by a private landlord or by a housing association. The last choice of any sensible tenant would be to be managed by a local authority such as that in the London borough of Camden.
I believe that my right hon. Friend is right in what he is proposing. I was certainly glad that he killed the canards that have been passed around by the Opposition that council rents will quintuple, or will rise by any other multiplier. Certainly, my right hon. Friend did not use the words "market forces" or "market rents", although the hon. Member for Copeland implied that he did.
I want to say to the hon. Member for Copeland that I agree that this is the 50th local government Bill. When local government was in its prime and was being run by men like Hayward, Griffin, Cunningham and Norman Pritchard, the legislation that we have had to introduce would never have been needed. All those were honourable men who put the interests of their constituents ahead of party political dogma. The tragedy is that such men no longer exist. My right hon. Friend and his predecessor have, therefore, had to introduce over and over again fresh legislation to fill—

Mr. Bob Cryer: Why did the Government abolish the GLC?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It was abolished because it had become one of the most corrupt local authorities in this, country. As I have said on more than one occasion, if anyone like Ike Hayward had still been around, the last leaders of the GLC would never have been allowed even through the back door.
My right hon. Friend and his predecessor have been forced over and over again to bring in legislation to block loopholes that they thought no decent person interested in local government would have attempted to use. I also do not regard some of the tricks proposed by the City as having been in the interests of the ratepayer or of the taxpayer. I have always believed that it is right to do what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is doing, which is, when possible, to repay the national debt, and, as my right hon. Friend is suggesting, to repay some local authority debts out of capital receipts. There is nothing wrong with that; indeed, the very reverse is true. I welcome the forward thinking that my right hon. Friend has introduced into this legislation.
On the question of twin tracking, there are so many examples of Labour council advertisements for senior officer posts indicating that they are expecting the


applicants to be sympathetic to the political aims of the local authority. We have just got rid—if that is the right word—of a director of social services in the London borough of Camden, a Mr. Kodikara. He was a most incompetent chairman of the social services committee of the London borough of Hackney. He remained a Hackney councillor. He has now gone with a golden handshake, some furniture and, more importantly, a contract for unspecified work at an unspecified price, and nobody can discover why that happened or what the figures are.
I do not accept what the hon. Member for Copeland said. The mere fact that somebody is an officer, well below principal rank, does not mean that he will not tender advice or take decisions on matters where he allows his political judgment to run ahead of his professional judgment. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has had second thoughts about what the Widdicombe Committee said and about the first reactions to that report. I believe that the original response to Widdicombe was not in accord with the evidence from around the country. My right hon. Friend has shown how flexible he is and how he listens to facts when they are given to him.
Staff, whether in local government or in the Civil Service, should be appointed on merit and not because their face fits or their political views fit. If the Bill goes any way towards restoring that once firm principle I shall be delighted.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that those strictures should apply to Government appointments on quangos or within the Civil Service? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Lord Chalfont and Lord Rees-Mogg have been appointed on their ability or because their faces fit and they subscribe to the Tory party cause?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Alas, the hon. Gentleman confuses the Civil Service and public bodies. They are totally different and therefore what he says is irrelevant. I would not want any civil servant to display political views or to hold any office. If such people wish to be politicians, in common with the hon. Gentleman and me, it is their choice, but they should cease to profess their independence, stand for election and take their chance.
The Bill also talks of achieving political balance on committees and the like, which will prevent advice being given to one party only. That practice operated in Camden where the Labour party created a leader's co-ordinating committee. Officers gave advice to that committee, but no member of the opposition was entitled to be present. That is the wrong way in which to proceed.
It appears that the policy of the Labour party in local government has been to get rid of opposition members on boards of school governors—I am reminded of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt)—and the like. For that reason the proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has introduced to get rid of local authority representation on district health authorities are absolutely right. Camden, for example, has refused over and over again to share representation on the local health authority. If that council wants a one-party system, frankly, there should be a no-party system. In the past I have made it clear to friends on Conservative-controlled councils that proportional

representation on DHAs and the like should be available to the opposition parties. I am glad that the Bill will ensure that that correct policy is followed.

Mr. Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about advice being shared among political parties, does he agree that the many advisers employed by the Government, including, for example, Mr. Peter Luff—he is paid £24,000 a year indirectly by his employer and the company is being investigated by that employer, the Department of Trade and Industry—and the information provided by those advisers, paid for by the taxpayer, should be shared among the opposition as well?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to smear individuals. I would rather have advice from Mr. Peter Luff than from the hon. Gentleman.
I welcome clause 124 which makes clear exactly what can be charged for in libraries. As my right hon. Friend has said, there never was any intention of charging for the basic core services. I also welcome clause 134 which winds up the Town Development Act 1952. When I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment I decided that that Act had served its purpose and had no real value any more—little was done under that Act from 1980 onwards. At the time it did a good job, but it is right that it should be wound up as it has no further function.
I appreciate that the principle of the Bill will be unacceptable to Opposition Members. I would not expect anything else, as it is their job to say that it is unacceptable even if, in their hearts, they know that there is a lot of merit in it. The Bill will be welcome, however, to people outside who are sick and tired of the perversion of local government. They have witnessed the Labour party's destruction of all that was decent and honourable in local government.
It is almost 40 years since I first entered local government by defeating the late Lord Greenwood. In those days local government was honourable on both sides, but today I fear that it has been put into disrepute by the activities of far too many people whom I do not believe the hon. Member for Copeland likes to acknowledge as members of his party. The Bill will do something to get rid of that element and I welcome it.

Mr. George Howarth: I shall confine my remarks primarily to housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has covered our concerns about other parts of the Bill.
A great deal needs to be done about housing, and it has not been addressed in the Bill or by previous legislation. It has been said that we have reached a half century of local government measures, but since the Government have been in power only five pieces of legislation have specifically dealt with housing. Despite that legislation we have not made any progress. The major problems of housing have not been addressed by the Bill, and they were not addressed by the Local Government Act 1988. The Government have refused to engage in any dialogue about those problems and have refused to recognise them.
Given that the Government have been in office for 10 years, it is interesting to note what the people given responsibility for housing in the Department of the Environment have done during that time. It is 28 months since I was elected to the House and it is remarkable that


there have been three different Ministers of State and goodness knows how many Under-Secretaries of State since then. I have studied recent publications by the housing press and have noticed the considerable amount of space that has been devoted to pictures of Lord Caithness—he is the Minister of State in the other place. He always appears in various housing journals with a trowel in his hand, laying bricks. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) makes a weekly appearance in some magazine or other wielding a spade and cutting the first sod. He was kind enough to do so on a development in my constituency the other week.
I have devoted some time to considering what various people have done in their various posts during the past 10 years and I believe that I have tumbled on the answer. I believe that the various housing posts within the Department of the Environment represent an employment training scheme for members of the aristocracy. They join the Department to do some work on housing, although they never achieve anything and then go on to do other things.
It is worth considering what has happened to some people who were at the Department of the Environment. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was Minister of State, Department of. the Environment when I was first elected, but after his training programme in that Department he was dispatched to another Department to resolve the problems of homelessness. He did not. of course, build any more houses as he was sent to that Department to build more prisons. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was an Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment when the 1988 Act went through the House. She did not complete her course of training and became the first victim of the landlord-tenant regulations set out in that Act when she was evicted from the Government; and so it goes on.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) served some time within that Department and had direct responsibilities for housing. Perhaps as a foretaste of the Bill, he left that Department of his own accord, presumably prior to his training being completed, to build a ring fence around the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. I could go on.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: What about Patrick Jenkin?

Mr. Howarth: I was not going on to deal with Patrick Jenkin. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will mention him when he winds up for the Opposition.
Perhaps we could consider the fate of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was responsible for the Housing Act 1988 when it was in Committee. He has been sent off to rule the world. I understand that he has been advising Secretary-General Gorbachev about the advantages of a secure tenancy over an assured tenancy, although I do not know how that applies to Mr. Gorbachev.
There has been a considerable throughput of Ministers but no action. None of the major problems that they inherited because of an aging housing stock has been addressed. The dilemmas and problems have grown worse without any realistic action being taken.
I should like to examine the opportunities that have not been addressed by the Bill, suggest some ideas that the Government might like to consider as the Bill goes through Committee, on the basis that we need to do something about some of housing's major problems.
How can we look at housing finance, which the Bill does in a very partial way, without considering the problems created by having a dual-track system—there seems to be a lot of reference to that—within the subsidy arrangements for housing? We have mortgage interest tax relief that can technically be unlimited. The only limit is on how many people fall into the qualification provisions. That ceiling can go up and up and has indeed been steadily raised because of the number of people who are coming into owner-occupation and taking out mortgages.
Yet at this time last year we witnessed a sharp reduction in housing benefits, which has certainly been felt in my constituency and elsewhere. The subsidy system needs to be sorted out because clearly there is no targeting of mortgage tax relief on one side, where people qualify for it by simply having a mortgage; yet on the other side targeting has lopped off hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of those eligible to claim housing benefit. The Government might have considered introducing a single housing benefit related to people's needs for housing and their means. That will really help those in housing need, who may be on a low income or dependent on state benefits, to acquire housing suitable to their needs. But no, the Government have not looked at that at all.
We hear a lot of talk about rents being allowed to find the market level. We heard that about the Housing Act, and in the Secretary of State's speech today. But what is a market rent? How does one determine a market rent, in an area such as Merseyside, where property values are falling in some parts? With what does one compare it? How does one determine a market rent in an area like mine, where rents are already very high? Indeed, the previous Minister of State, who is now a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, conceded in a meeting with councillors in my constituency that rents were already relatively high. Yet they must increase even more as a result of the Bill.
I do not quite know how the Government will sort out all these things. If they are serious about doing something for the homeless, why do they not consider some of the possibilities in the short-life movement? What we really need, of course, is a long-term solution to homelessness, but the crisis is on us now. In London and other cities there is a large short-life, community-based housing association movement. If the Government want to do something about homelessness, they could go to these community-based associations and say, "We will give you mini-housing association grant money." Even in central London it usually costs about £20,000 to £25,000 to bring a new unit of accommodation into use for the homeless. Why not let associations get on with mini-HAG schemes and bring some of the property that is awaiting repair on stream, and thus do something about the problem?
An incidental by-product of that is the reduced cost of these schemes. Whereas it costs about £15,000 a year to keep a homeless family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, less than £1,000 a year in subsidies will keep a homeless family in short-life accommodation. That eminently sensible suggestion is worth looking at, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest a solution to the problems of the homeless. It is another missed opportunity.
Why does the Bill not address the problem of disrepair and the extent to which much new build in the private and, to some extent, in the public sector, adds to it? Why do the Government not look now, for example, at the space standards that are being built to now? Why do they not look at the standards of materials used in the public sector and by housing associations, and certainly in the private sector, as a result of the new financing regime? Why do they not look at standards of materials and construction techniques, with an emphasis on setting reasonable standards?
We already know about the sorry saga of disrepair, with £20 billion a year being needed, but not spent, to bring the stock up to scratch. It is probably a much higher figure now. Why do not the Government look for ways to stop making that problem worse? I know well that much of the housing being built—the Minister will have to concede this if he looks at it carefully—will be a major problem in 20 years' time. It is shoddily built.

Mr. Patnick: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the curses of local government today is that high-rise, mass-density developments that were built in the early 1970s are causing much of the need for refurbishment? The local authorities are throwing money at them as if that is a solution. Demolition is the only way forward. These are big housing blocks, and there is a multiplicity of them.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman mentions the problems of high-rise flats. I recognise that demolition is the problem. A 21-storey block of flats called Stourbridge villas, where I have lived, is being demolished in my constituency. But that is not always the answer. If some high-rise blocks were refurbished they would provide satisfactory accommodation for certain people. It is not correct to say that all those blocks should be pulled down, because we shall not be able to replace those units fast enough. Local authorities should be given resources, where appropriate, to improve properties, to repair lifts and stop damp penetration.
The major point is that, unless the Government do something about standards in the construction industry, what is being built at the moment will cause major problems of disrepair in 20 to 30 years' time. The Government of that day, of whatever colour, will have to provide billions of pounds to put the problems right, in both the private and public sectors.
Instead of attacking local government, which is the main thrust of the Bill, why do the Government not look at the possibility of building up partnership arrangements? They already have schemes such as Estate Action, where the Government are tentatively dipping their toes into the water. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment visited the Tower hill part of my constituency, and I give him credit.
In Tower hill, the local residents, the local authority and the Government, in the form of the Estate Action programme, have together carried out major improvements to the estate, and its layout and general environment. But why do the Government not take that idea further and say, "Okay, it is a good idea to involve the community in this type of urban renewal, but we shall also provide the capital"? Instead of money being provided to improve the periphery of estates, improvements could be

made to the inside of properties, many of which are riddled with damp and have other problems, too. That would be a major step, but it has received no consideration.
Successive Ministers have failed to address Britain's housing problems. They have been hidebound by dogma that is neither relevant nor appropriate to the problems that we face. Unless the Government are prepared to listen to sensible suggestions about how to solve the real problems, their legislation will fail to make any contribution to housing and will probably end up making matters worse.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: It is hard to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) who seems to have been in local government even longer than I have, which is for the majority of my life. The rot started—the two factors have nothing in common—when I joined local government in 1967.
I wanted local government's role to be clearly defined in the Bill. Twenty years ago, at the beginning of my service in local government, local government throughout Britain was run on sensible and efficient lines, whether the councils were controlled by Labour or any other party. Between 1970 and 1980 I regret that there was increasing abuse of local government procedures, privileges and finances, which, in the main, have occurred in Labour-controlled councils.
The Bill's objective is to return local government to the practices once prevalent everywhere, based on service to the local community rather than for personal political gain. As the Minister said, we are trying to give local government back to local government.
I can remember the time when a local council's chief officer was not only respected but someone about whose political affiliation no one had a clue. I doubt whether he even voted. Those days have long since gone. Yet the Opposition are constantly looking for hidden agendas. They cannot look at a Bill without seeing conspiracy behind it.

Mr. Winnick: Since the hon. Gentleman is criticising local authorities and has mentioned chief executives, will he take this opportunity to condemn Westminster city council which, under the leadership of Lady Porter, has been run in a disgraceful and corrupt way and has been involved in a hush-money contract?

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) must have an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Patnick: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) sounds like a continuous tape, going on and on. The words are the same, only the player is different. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Gummer: In answering the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), will my hon. Friend ask whether Opposition Members wish to deny the chief executive money that he has paid, legally and properly, into a superannuation fund, and whether they would care to cast their minds over the fact that the only


case about which they ever talk is the one that has just been mentioned, whereas my hon. Friend could no doubt keep the House here all evening with cases of proven misuse?

Mr. Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for those words of guidance. Before I became a Member of the House, a chief executive of a former metropolitan county had a similar experience and, like the chief executive of Westminster council, he took the money to which he was entitled. It is the system that is wrong. I shall refer later to an hon. Member who was in local government.
There is nothing hidden or conspiratorial about the Government's intentions in the Bill. The Government have forced local government to he efficient and responsible. If the Labour party want a form of twin tracking, let it be the twin tracks of efficiency and responsibility. The Bill is a response to proven abuses and needs and it helps to put above board the activities of those centrally involved in local government. The Opposition's stance makes it clear that such a Bill would never see the light of day under a Labour Government. The Bill is overdue and abundantly necessary and deserves the whole-hearted support of the House.
The Government have already implemented some of the Widdicombe report's recommendations on political propaganda on the rates. That matter came before the House in June 1988 and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Member for Southampton. Itchen—no "h" dropped—(Mr. Chope) explained to me that I was wrong to ask how councils such as those in Sheffield and Derbyshire could issue newspapers which to me were propaganda on the rates.
How can Derbyshire county council which says that it stands by its services go on to say that county councillors have pledged that cuts in services and jobs will not be adopted by the county council
at any time in the foreseeable future and at least until 1993
according to the council's leader? How can that be the right way to run a council? How can that be permitted under legislation? The Government have been soft on such propaganda on the rates, and there is more.

Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patnick: I am not the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, but I shall willingly give way.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman talks about councils spending money on propaganda, but they have a right to inform the people whom they represent. Will he say something about the millions of pounds that the Government spend on propaganda advancing their case instead of putting the facts to the people?

Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman, who travels on the train with me, will be able to make his own point in his own way in his own time.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that strict rules apply to Ministers and their Departments. In the four years that I was a Minister I spent most of my time being utterly frustrated as a result of being unable to issue facts to counter some of the fiction coming from the Opposition.

Mr. Patnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance.
Sheffield city council put out a leaflet entitled "The Community Charge"—the one and only time that it called it that. It usually refers to it as we all know, as the poll tax. In the well-known Sheffield News, which is nothing short of a propaganda sheet paid for by the city's rate-payers for the benefit of Sheffield's Labour party—

Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this relevant to the Bill that we are discussing? Propaganda on the rates was dealt with under previous legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A Second Reading debate is wide, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) will, with all his local government experience, be able to return to the Bill.

Mr. Patnick: I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. We are discussing implementing the second part of the Widdicombe report, which also dealt with propaganda on the rates. If Opposition Members catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that they will be able to make their speeches without my assistance.
The wonderful Sheffield News says:
'Poll Tax is the sort of tax which gives taxes a bad name'. But councils will be legally obliged to collect it.
The Redcliffe-Maud report entitled "Conduct in Local Government", Cmnd. 5636 published in 1974, opposed any relaxation of existing rules and considered extending to employees of any authority the disqualification from membership of an authority anybody who holds office in, or in the gift of, that authority. It did not make any such recommendation, but it made the following comment, which is worth listening to, because the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), the former leader of Doncaster council, is present and he was around at the time of Redcliff-Maud:
Any officer, whether senior or junior, whose work is in any way connected with the decision-making process of his authority and who contemplates seeking election to membership of the authority of the other tier should consider very carefully whether such membership would prejudice his ability to serve, and be recognised as serving, his own authority loyally and impartially as an employee.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not here so I understand that it is bad form to speak about him, but 1 suppose that worse things have been said about him. He referred to the question how many councillors were twin tracking, and he quoted from Widdicombe. Widdicombe said that, according to its research, about 16 per cent. of councillors in employment and 10 per cent. of all councillors were employees of other authorities. It went on to say that there were many authorities where significantly more than 10 per cent. of councillors were twin trackers and others where significantly fewer were. It also said that there was a more common phenomenon with 13 per cent. of all councillors being councillors of two or more authorities.
I put two hands up. I was a member of South Yorkshire county council and Sheffield city council at one and the same time. I found no conflict at all. I was in opposition on both councils. My head was repeatedly kicked in, night and day. Many is the time that I have sent letters to Her Majesty's Government saying that there is something wrong with local government and it should go back to where it was when I first joined it.
The Widdicombe report is the report of the committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business. I


really was a poacher there because I gave evidence to it as leader of the opposition on South Yorkshire county council. We were short-changed by the controlling group of that now defunct authority. There was no way that we had an opportunity to sit pro rata in the membership of committees. There was no way at all that we could operate within the standing orders of the council, because, if we found a way of getting round the standing orders, the standing orders were changed. It was easy: if the rules do not fit, change the rules.
This happened in Sheffield city council. [Interruption.] Well, I came into the House with the rules that were already there. The one thing that I have learnt from hon. Gentlemen is that the House operates with rules, and they try to break them at every opportunity.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my hon. Friend remember Councillor George Senior of Sheffield saying, "We mean to obstruct the law in every way; that is what we are about"? He said that about the direct Labour opposition to parts of the Local Government Act 1974 at the time, but is that not also true of their attitude to everything else?

Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for that guidance. I have listened to that from hon. Gentlemen. They say that they take no notice of the law that we make, to paraphrase.
The Widdicombe report was published in June 1986 and it provides a comprehensive analysis of the way in which local authorities are operating at present. The report made a large number of recommendations designed to strengthen democratic procedures within which local government operates. The Government's response, as the hon. Member for Copeland noted, was published in a White Paper in July 1988, and the Government have already acted on some of the recommendations.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall confine my speech in the main to the Widdicombe part of the Bill.
Section 2 of the 1986 Act prohibits local authorities from publishing or assisting others to publish material. I have given an example of this. I listened to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), so no doubt his friend Councillor Jones will now have more information on which to work.
It is a fact that this cross-pollination, twin tracking—whatever it is called—is rife here, but it is also rife in places such as Sheffield. It was rife when South Yorkshire county council existed. The leader of Sheffield council swapped places with the leader of Barnsley council. The two of them worked with the two authorities. The former chairman of housing on Sheffield city council was employed by South Yorkshire county council. I was deputy chairman of the residuary body that closed it down, and I wanted to see where Councillor X sat. They said that they had closed his office because he was never there. It was a joke, a farce; and by way of compensation they gave the deputy leader of South Yorkshire county council a full-time job as deputy leader of the council; he was a teacher and he went as a full-time member of the county council, on a full salary, but with no timetable.
That is what went on in local government. Surely it cannot be right that a highly paid officer in a council should have someone else doing his work.

Mr. Redmond: Councillor Lunn, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred as leader of Barnsley, did a damn good job for the people of Barnsley. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to condemn twin tracking, will he also condemn those hon. Members who have good salaries for the consultancies and directorships they have secured?

Mr. Patnick: I am rather disturbed that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the name of the person concerned. I have not used the name of any councillor in this place. The man died some while ago, and it besmirches his memory for an hon. Gentleman to bring up his name. I have not mentioned any names. If the cap fits, let the hon. Gentleman wear it. [Interruption.] I am not struggling at all.
A former right hon. Member of the House, Albert Booth, when he was defeated in the election, arrived at South Yorkshire county council as an official. He was one of the technical directors of the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive. We all know that there are good salaries here and compensation for loss of office. I think that there is also a pension, if my memory serves me correctly. He came to be interviewed for a position and one of the first things I asked him was whether, if a vacancy occurred anywhere in a safe Labour seat, he would take it. He said that he would not. He left for the 1987 election. He took early retirement, and he finished up with two pensions. That is all right, is it not? That is legitimate, because he came from the Labour side.
Let me carry on with some of the rocky horror stories. The leader of Bradford city council was employed as an anti-privatisation adviser to Wakefield city council. A quarter of Glasgow's city councillors were employed by their own regional council. In Camden, at one time, 48 per cent. of the Labour councillors were dependent, directly or indirectly, on councils in their area.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has very wide experience in local government in Sheffield and on South Yorkshire county council. Would he like to comment on the fact that this is still going on; that, in spite of the fact that this Bill has been published and twin tracking is to be outlawed, only last week the London borough of Hackney shortlisted for its deputy chief executive post Councillor Linda Bellos and Councillor Fred Taggert, both Left-wing Labour members of Lambeth borough council, and appointed Councillor Fred Taggert to that post? What confidence can Conservative and Liberal members of that council have that that individual, as an independent deputy chief executive, will give them unbiased advice?

Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that matter to my attention.
When I was leader of the opposition on South Yorkshire county council, one of my most difficult jobs was obtaining impartial advice from chief officers. It is extremely difficult when one knows that, sometimes, whatever one says goes through a direct pipeline to the ear of the leader of the council. No confidence can exist in that situation. It is most upsetting, but it was even more upsetting to find that, during a by-election for the council, one of its chief officers was delivering Labour party leaflets in the ward concerned. That is scandalous and totally wrong. Whatever may be one's political affiliations, they remain private when one marks a ballot paper or even works behind closed doors, when there is no way that


anyone else can snoop. But it is a different matter for a chief officer to be seen on the streets of Sheffield during a by-election, delivering Labour party leaflets. That must be stopped somehow. There must be a cut-off point.
It would be wrong of me to say that I do not know of a Tory who holds high office in a council. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Don Valley laughs.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am genuinely sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), but your immediate predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and even Mr. Speaker himself, made the point that, although there is no time limit on speeches, right hon. and hon. Members should remember that there are many who wish to speak in the debate. The hon. Member for Hallam has already spoken for 21 minutes. I do not believe that he is bringing his remarks to a close—he has no need, as there is no time limit. I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that only two Back Benchers have so far spoken—and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) kept his contribution very tightly within 10 or 15 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who I know hopes to catch my eye, gives me the opportunity to say that many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Patnick: If anyone in this place blows a lot of wind, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is the leading culprit.
The Local Government Act 1988 acted on Widdicombe's recommendations. It allows local ombudsmen to consider complaints from the public, and gives powers to the district auditor to stop potentially unlawful expenditure. However, it does not allow the district auditor to tell a council if he considers that such expenditure is wrong. Where such expenditure is a matter of political judgment, the district auditor will say, "I do not wish to know." In the miners' strike, funding was provided by a council to the miners. When I complained about that practice, I was told that it was a political decision and that the district auditor could not enter into that political arena.
The South Yorkshire county council's fares policy sucked money out of local authorities, and the only thing left to show for that is a memory of cheap fares. There are no improved roads or a police station. When I told the district auditor that it was wrong, he replied, "You can take it to court and fund that action, and we shall see what is the outcome. I have neither the time, the inclination, nor the funds to take legal action against an authority—when all it needs to do is increase its rates."
I close on a most interesting point.

Mr. Winnick: We wondered when you would reach it.

Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to criticise my speech. Opposition Members have that privilege and treat in store—but I could almost recite the Opposition's speeches. The Opposition will say that nothing should be altered because everything is all right as it is—everything is wonderful and marvellous. The hon. Gentleman who makes all the noise will say that the Government have got it wrong—but I have never heard him say that anyone has it right.

Mr. Winnock: To whom was he paying that tribute?

Mr. Patnick: Sadly, I cannot recollect the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. When I do, the hon. Gentleman will get the full width of my tongue.
The Bill will restore to local government some of the benefits that others have taken away. Twin tracking, the appointment of political officers, the appointment of political devotees, and the funding of various organisations from the petty cash of local government and their financing by ratepayers' money, will all cease.
Some of the organisations that have made representations on the Bill see in it certain imperfections. I am convinced by the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that amendments, alterations and improvements will be made. The Bill will put local government back where it belongs, and will allow it to be run by people whose only role will be to give genuinely impartial advice and guidance. They will not be on the payroll of another organisation or council whose intention is to stop elected representatives doing what they want. Impartial advice is needed in local government, and that is something that we shall ensure is available when we return proper powers to local government.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State used measured terms to describe the Bill—which he tried to suggest was non-controversial. However, the Bill commands precious little support among those in local authorities who are in the best position to understand its impact. In particular, it commands precious little support among Conservative councillors and those among them who have commented on it.
The chairman of the housing and works committee of the London Boroughs Association asks for a year to get over the last Bill that the Secretary of State introduced. The Association of County Councils, in the reasonable expectation that examination of the Bill will be guillotined—for we may have a shopping list, but we shall not be able to examine closely the prices and the quality of the goods—comments:
It is to be regretted that they"—
that is, the Government's proposals
will not receive the parliamentary scrutiny that they deserve.
The Bill contains many provisions that should have been dealt with separately and at length, and in greater detail than we shall have an opportunity to do.
The attack on local government in recent years, and the continual movement of power to the centre, worries many people of all political persuasions. Among them are people who, in the past, have not taken a great interest in politics. They may discuss politics and vote, but they have not actively campaigned on the streets. Those people are now genuinely concerned about the drift of power to central Government, that is once again, being written into legislation. The Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils—hardly a hotbed of Trotskyist interest—comments:
It is difficult to tell what precisely is envisaged, but the net effect would appear to be more power to the Secretary of State, and even less freedom for local authorities.
That is contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick).
The Association of County Councils comments:


The Association is concerned that so many important aspects of the Bill's provisions are left to be dealt with by secondary legislation and that there is to be such an increase in the powers of the Secretary of State.
The first to feel the brunt of the Bill's attack on local authorities will not be councillors but their employees, as they find their freedom to participate in the political party or body of their choice abolished. In a democracy, and for all the soft words of the Secretary of State, the decision to deprive people of their right to campaign, and to take part in the political process, is of critical importance. No one should be denied that right without the matter being given deep thought, and without deep regret being felt—because that right is the basis of the society that all right hon. and hon. Members are here to defend.
The Bill will bring about 70,000 or, if one believes the ACC, 90,000 or more, local government officers under the wing of Ministers and their representatives and deny those officers the basic right of political activity. Although in some cases they will have the right to apply to get those liberties back, it is wrong that we should force 70,000, 90,000 or even 10,000 people to have to beg for their rights under that sort of system.
The Secretary of State has constantly pushed for leaner, more professional councils. But among those whom we shall be taking out of any involvement in politics and council work will be many who are experienced and best able to take part in activities that would benefit local authorities and council groups.

Mr. Gummer: If one of the supporters of the hon. Gentleman's party wanted advice from the local social services department in, say, the London borough of Brent, does the hon. Gentleman think that that supporter would be entirely comfortable with the fact that the assistant director there was the controversial chairman of the planning committee in Ealing? What if one of his party's supporters wishing to obtain some advice went to the equal opportunities adviser in the London borough of Hackney, only to find that she was the former controversial leader of the Labour party in the London borough of Lambeth? Would it not be more suitable if those places were filled with people who were independent and were not part of the party political machine? Electors would feel more comfortable in asking for their advice, would they not?

Mr. Taylor: The proposals in the Bill go far beyond tackling a few examples such as those. If more limited changes were proposed—for example, if the proposals affected only chief officers and their deputies—we would support them. The Bill goes far beyond the action that we feel needs to be taken. There may be occasions when councillors from one party must consult people whom they believe to have strong political persuasions of another sort. In most cases the advice being sought would not involve politics, and where it did, there would not be many cases where the person seeking advice could not also turn to others, perhaps to more senior officers, for further advice.
The Minister has set the arbitrary salary level of £13,500. That, coupled with the broad brief to bring in anyone else as the Minister thinks appropriate, goes way beyond what is acceptable in a democratic country in

which every individual should have the right to take part, and be heard, in the democratic system. That is at the very basis of the political system that we are here to defend.

Mr. Gummer: It is not an arbitrary figure. The sum of £13,500 was recommended by the Widdicombe committee, which said that there should be an absolute ban on all political activities and that there should be no right of appeal. The Government have introduced a right of appeal over and above that independent Widdicombe recommendation.

Mr. Taylor: Time is short. I hope that we shall have time to go into that and other matters in Committee. It is clear that there is not enough time to deal with the many issues raised by the Bill.
The Government are encouraging local authorities to make greater use of the private sector. Many PR companies advise local authorities and the public on new legislation. The Government are not acting against them in the way that they are acting against council employees, yet those PR companies can employ councillors and even have Members of Parliament as their directors. No restriction is being placed on them. Is that not as good an example of twin tracking as the Minister gave?
Would the Minister even attempt to deny that councillors are able to work for private companies and gain financially from information acquired during the execution of activities in their publicly elected posts? He cannot deny it, yet he will not act on that form of abuse.
It is unsatisfactory that there is no definition of "political activity" in the Bill. It is left to the Secretary of State to define. What is a controversial speech? The Conservative research department brief on the measure refers to
speaking or writing publicly on matters of party political controversy.
Would an employee who was also a school governor not be able to speak publicly on opting out but only on school meals? Would such a person not be able to speak about race relations but only on the colour that the school corridors should be painted? Or do the Government believe that they should not be school governors at all because holding such a post brings one into the sphere of political controversy?
On 2 February Parliament and the press examined the Official Secrets Bill restriction on civil servants and the refusal of the Government to introduce the "whistle-blowers" for whom their Back Benchers had called. On the same day, the Secretary of State for the Environment published a measure giving councils the duty to appoint a monitoring officer to report to councils any contravention of the law by the council or its employees.
Criticism of much of that came from Conservative Members. For example, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), when referring to the measure before the House today, said when we were debating the Official Secrets Bill:
I read in The Daily Telegraph of last Monday Whistleblower law to break Left's grip'.
It seems that the Government, through their new Local Government and Housing Bill—I have no doubt that if I or The Daily Telegraph have got it wrong we will be corrected—will seek to appoint what The Daily Telegraph, I am sure, wrongly characterises as whistleblowers
'empowered to speak out against illegal or unfair actions as part of a campaign to raise standards of local government'. What they think is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander".—[Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 477.]


It is not necessary to elaborate on that telling point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. While the Government are prepared to keep the public informed in the arena of councils, where they are not in political control, in Whitehall, where they are in political control, public servants are to be restricted from revealing information in the public interest. The hypocrisy of that is clear.
I do not oppose everything in the Bill. Indeed, it is so wide-ranging and it contains such a shopping list of items that it would be impossible to disagree with it all. I welcome the proposals on proportionality. My party is at the forefront of fair methods of representation, so it would be strange if I did not support that aspect.
There are peculiarities in what is proposed. Does the Bill completely rule out councils devolving planning decisions to a more local level, or, as Tower Hamlets has done, conducting experiments with community councils? Would it not be more appropriate still if elections gave proportional representation to people's views, instead of the Government trying to fiddle after Rome has burned, as the Minister seems to be doing?
My party supports the ban on voting by non-elected members, but the Secretary of State must explain more clearly why that should not apply beyond the areas the Government seem to have in mind. For example, why should it not apply in schools or to magistrates?
There are various items with which we might agree, but the bulk of the Bill remains an attack on councils and council tenants. The introduction of ring fencing is one of the most insidious moves yet made by the Government against councils. It is an attack on council tenants going beyond anything the Government have achieved so far.
The Guardian, which admittedly, is not always on the side of the Government, wrote in an editorial on 3 February:
Two out of three of the 4·3 million council tenants in the country are so poor that, despite seven separate cuts in benefits in the last eight years, they remain eligible. That leaves the other one-third, many of whom are earning only just above the poverty line, under the threat of paying higher rents to subsidise the unemployed, disabled people and the elderly.
Homelessness is on the increase, yet the last people these measures will assist are the homeless and the poor.
Let me turn back to the words of Conservative members of the London Boroughs Association:
The proposals relating to rent rebate subsidy are also of major concern to our members. Housing benefit is intended to relieve poverty and is thus rightly part of the national social security system. We therefore feel that it would be inequitable for the responsibility for financing housing benefit payable to council tenants to be transferred to local government…this change could prejudice and would certainly complicate any future attempts to reform the system for relieving poverty"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The "Hear hears" to those views from a Conservative-controlled association are all from the Opposition side of the House; Conservative Members remain silent.
The phrase "The poor subsidising the very poor" is one that we have heard again and again and will continue to hear throughout the passage of the Bill, but the Government do not wish to listen. The Institute of Housing says:
it is morally wrong that better off council tenants should be paying through their rents, for the welfare benefits given to other tenants. Private and Housing Association tenants are not being placed in this position.

The Bill will place tenants renting from a local authority in the difficult position of having to pay for a hidden extra, and will remove money that could be used for repairs.
On the shopping list is a radical alteration in the welfare system, which warrants a debate and a Bill of its own and should not be part of a more general Bill on local government reform.
The Audit Commission has said:
merging rent rebates in the housing subsidy will serve to obscure both the cost of housing benefits and the true profitability of public housing. The proposals would also, in the Commission's view, be a source of continued friction with local government and unrebated tenants. It would be preferable to maintain rent rebate subsidy as a separate element, calculated on rebates granted. If Government considers that with such an approach it is unacceptable that the whole of the HRA surpluses should be retained locally then the problem should be separately addressed.
Quite so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) argued for fair rents during the Committee stage of the Housing Bill 1988, and I intend to do the same. Rents should be affordable. The Government say that they agree with that, but they have not revealed how they intend to achieve it. There must be a mechanism to ensure that rents are affordable for council tenants who do not receive rent rebate.
How does the Secretary of State respond to the criticisms of the Association of District Councils that no figures have been produced to show how the new system will work, or what its national or local effects will be? The Minister cannot be telling us that no such figures have been drawn up. Surely he would not introduce a change of such significance without at least having a look at the likely effect on councils—or is it that he dare not tell the Conservative-controlled ADC what will happen to all too many of his Conservative councillor colleagues, and explain to them how they will explain it to the electorate as the costs of the change begin to come in?
Where are the estimates and projections to prove conclusively that the system will work? I hope that the Minister will come forward now, before the Bill goes into Committee—but I suspect that he will not do so even then. The figures will emerge in dribs and drabs when the Bill has gone through, and no doubt the Minister will come up with some excuses.
We can, however, discover a little of what is happening from the Conservative research department brief that I mentioned earlier headed:
The Local Government and Housing Bill…Prepared for: Second Reading debate in the House of Commons.
It is also headed "Confidential". On page 15, it asks:
What is the Government's policy on council rents?
Shortly after that, we see the nub of the answer:
The Government wil be making a more detailed statement on council rents in the near future.
In other words, they ain't going to tell us just yet.
Perhaps there is a clue in question 3:
How will the new system affect council rents in the short term?
The answer is:
In the first year the level of exchequer subsidy will reflect the amount paid under the old system the previous year. Any increases in rents will therefore be gradual."
There is the answer. There will be increases, but they may be gradual. They will be like a Chinese torture, and hurt people slowly rather than all at once.

Mr. John Battle: Two years ago, the Secretary of State went on record as saying that he thought that a fair market rent for council tenants was at least £35 a week.

Mr. Taylor: Conservative Members will be interested to know that. No doubt they will put it in their local literature come election time.
My comments have not by any means covered all the Bill's provisions; there has not been time, because it is a hotch-potch Bill that should not be before the House. But my warnings will echo around council chambers, whether Conservative-controlled, Labour-controlled, Democrat-controlled or balanced. Councillors and local authority employees of all parties share my fears.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has relied extensively on briefings supplied by the Conservative research department for his inspiration—no doubt because the Liberals were unable to provide any of their own. He and the hon. Members for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have all described the Bill as yet another sandbag with which to clobber local government. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) developed that theme in his article in The Sunday Times two days ago, and in the publication "Governing London" the leader of the Association of London Authorities describes the Bill as
yet another wave of vitriolic anti-democratic legislation.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities says that it is
an affront to civil liberties.
As one who has served on and strongly believes in local government, I wholly disagree. I regard the Bill, on the contrary, as a necessary if painful step down the road of restoring the integrity of local government, curbing the abuses that have brought it into disrepute and thereby helping it to become once again a thriving, relevant democratic institution in which people are proud to serve.
I see a parallel between this legislation—and that on local government which preceded it—and our legislation on trade unions. Both have addressed institutions born in the late 19th century to combat the weaknesses of a system dependent on unbridled market forces, and to improve the living standards of the less well off. Both have honourable traditions and achievements, now taken for granted, but in the 1970s both began to lose their way. On the one hand, they started to lose touch with those whom they represented; on the other, they began to stray into areas where they had no business to be and, indeed, to challenge the mandate of national Governments.
That, in turn, precipitated legislative reform from a Conservative Government—reform recognised to be necessary by many Opposition Members. We recognised the need to reform the trade unions before the need to reform local government, because many of the abuses within local government manifested themselves only in our first and second terms of office. The trade union legislation, further down the track, has not, as our opponents said that it would, destroyed the movement, but has made it more accountable. It has stopped most of the indefensible practices and has created—if I may use the jargon—a new mood of realism, and a new breed of leader who accepts that the world has changed and that different attitudes are now required. I believe that that is in the long-term interests of the movement.
The same applies to local government. Again, a new mood of realism is beginning to break out, and a new type of leader—particularly of Labour authorities—is now emerging. The new leaders accept that the world has changed: they are pragmatic rather than dogmatic. Ted Knight and Derek Hatton have been disqualified, the former leader of the GLC is now the restrained hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), and Margaret Hodge of Islington is going straight.
Those changes were not volunteered by the parties concerned. Indeed, the most bitter battles that the House has seen in the past 10 years have been on the field of local government. Those changes and improvements have been secured by legislation—legislation of which this Bill is an important part. But we are not quite there yet. The Bill contains many missing pieces of the jigsaw.
First, there are the proposals for capital receipts. I was astonished to see, in the briefing made available by the LBA, the statement:
Capital receipts should be made available to the generating authority
this is not a briefing on the Electricity Bill—
without a reduction in its basic credit approval.
That would be wholly inequitable and, incidentally, to the disadvantage of many London boroughs.
The London Boroughs Association wants the Secretary of State to ignore the fact that some boroughs generate substantial sums in capital receipts while others do not. The former are clearly able to discharge their obligations without having to borrow more easily than the latter. To give credit approval without taking account of the resources available to local authorities, far from being a matter of "simple justice", as is claimed in the briefing, would make existing inequities permanent. I hope that we shall hear no more of that argument, which would make the problems facing the homeless in London far worse. It is clear from the briefing that the Association of District Councils does not take exception to that provision.
The most controversial proposals in the Bill relate to the housing revenue account and were touched on by the hon. Member for Truro. There has been a great deal of muddled thinking about the proposals to use surpluses on the housing revenue account to help pay for housing benefit. One school of thought, represented in the briefing from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, was against any surpluses from the housing revenue account. It states:
The AMA is opposed to ring fencing—believing local authorities should be free to exercise their own discretion. But it is also opposed to profits being made on HRAs.
My right hon. Friend will have the figures, but I suspect that a good many Labour-controlled authorities will have a surplus on the H RA and use it to keep down the rates. I see nothing wrong with having a surplus on the housing revenue account. If the housing stock was built some time ago and is in good condition and the debt has been paid off, it would be absurd to charge £10 per week for a four-bedroomed house in Windsor occupied by someone earning a good salary at Heathrow airport. Such a rent would contrast very oddly with rents on nearby properties built more recently, which would be three or four times that level perhaps for something much worse. We should start by asking what is a reasonable rent and if the totality of those rents less the financing and management costs generates a surplus, let us debate what should be done with the surplus.
At the moment that surplus can be used to keep down the rates. That seems far less defensible than using it to pay housing benefit. Opposition Members make the criticism


that the proposed regime will result in the poor subsidising the poorest. They gloss over the fact that many council tenants are not poor. Under the present regime that Opposition Members seek to defend, the so-called poor are subsidising those who are not poor—the ratepayers.
Given that surpluses are legitimate, I see no reason why they should not go towards the cost of housing benefit locally. To say that the cost of meeting poverty is the responsibility of central Government and not local government is to play with words. Central Government could easily introduce negative grant-related expenditure for housing and remove from local government the surpluses on the HRAs. They could then transfer it to the Department of Social Security which would apply it to housing benefit. In that way central Government would relieve poverty.
The proposals in the Bill short-circuit that cumbersome manoeuvre and transfer the surplus directly into the local HRA. The briefing from the Institute of Housing, which dislikes the proposals in the Bill, suggests an alternative procedure which has exactly the same effect. One has to look rather carefully behind the rhetoric about the poor subsidising the poorest. The proposals are then perfectly defensible.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the housing revenue account has never been used sensibly, it is because central Government have always interfered in it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned people living in properties for which the historic costs have already been covered. If one were putting together a sensible project, those people should benefit from that through reduced rents, but they are forced to pay higher rents because central Government insist on that. If local authorities try to get round that they lose grant. Where is the fairness in that?

Sir George Young: I see no justice in charging cost rents for properties on which the debt has been paid. In many cases the cost rent would be £10 or £15 per week, when such a property could produce a rent based on replacement costs or on rents in comparable areas. Such rents would generate a surplus which could be ploughed back into housing. Cost rents are a totally indefensible subsidy to the people who happen to be living in such houses. They produce an indefensible disparity between properties built in the 1920s and those built in the 1980s. A property built in the 1980s may be less desirable than the one built in the 1920s, but under the system that the hon. Gentleman seeks to defend the rent for the newer property would be six or seven times higher. One could not begin to defend such a system to the person living in the more recently built property.
At some point, responsibility for housing benefit should be removed from the DSS and transferred back to the DOE. The interaction between the new capital regime and housing benefit is crucial. If housing associations and the private sector are to seize the opportunities available to them, a generous housing benefit regime will have to underpin the rents that emerge. If responsibility for housing benefit rests with the DSS, why should it do battle with the Treasury to get higher housing benefit when it is responsible for pensions, the disabled and so on? An integrated approach would require housing benefit to be transferred back to the DOE where it rested about seven years ago.
I turn briefly to parts VII and VIII on improvement grants. The previous regime was difficult to defend, when well-off people who did not need the money received improvement grants, and when there was some evidence that the availability of grants simply fed through into house prices. Those days are no more. In practice, improvement grants in many areas are, in effect, means tested, so I am not too upset about recognising that in statute. It will be easier for the Department to argue for more resources for improvement grants when the new targeted regime is in force, but there is more to renovating the stock then simply making grants available. A necessary partner is the availability of professional, impartial advice, particularly for the elderly owner-occupier. I hope that there will be many more schemes such as those pioneered by the National Home Improvement Council where public money joins private money to make a demonstrable impact on an entire area.
I hope that we shall also remove a particular abuse possible within the existing regime. Someone who is eligible for a grant can get a quotation from a reputable builder and submit it to the local authority with his grant application. The local authority will base the grant on the quotation, so long as it considers it reasonable. The applicant can then get his brother-in-law to do the job more cheaply, and although the applicant has then spent less than the quote he is still entitled to the original grant. At the moment it is quite possible to get the work done and make a profit. I hope that that will be stopped and that there will be some incentive to ensure that publicly funded improvement work is carried out by reputable firms. I have looked briefly at clause 112 and I am not convinced that it goes quite far enough. It may need to be explored further in Committee.
With regard to clauses 25 to 29, I was pleased to see that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations welcomes much in the Bill—the retention and clarification of section 137, the provision that voluntary organisations should provide written statements of their use of local authority money and the specific powers in clauses 25 to 27 to fund economic development activity. Again, some points of concern should be dealt with in Committee. The clauses to which I have referred do not explicitly cover voluntary agencies engaged in economic development. 'The drafting refers to public undertakings, and it is not clear that the Bill covers voluntary organisations.
There is also some concern in London at the proposal to change section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985. I shall not explain the problems in detail, but, in a nutshell, difficulties will be caused to the London borough grant scheme if projects funded under section 48 have to be funded by section 137 which is often heavily oversubscribed. I have a particular interest in that as I gave generous undertakings on behalf of the Government about section 48 when the Greater London Council was being abolished and obviously do not wish to be a party to breaking them now.
Finally, I welcome the provisions to ensure neutrality in senior appointments. In Ealing, when the Labour party took control in 1986, the chief executive was, in effect, dismissed the following week. Two other directors left after about a year because of political interference. Now none of the original chief officers remains, although one has retired. At least one of their replacements would find it very difficult to work under an administration of a different complexion because of his political views.
I am a strong believer in the principle of a professional, impartial team of local government officials because it


provides continuity and enhances public confidence in local services. The ban on political activity will enhance that objective. Fourteen of Ealing's Labour councillors are employed by neighbouring boroughs and six employees of the borough are councillors on other Labour councils. The Bill will clarify the distinction between elected politicians and non-elected officials. It will strengthen the independence of officers and ensure that members have sound professional and impartial advice. Incidentally, I note that this part of the Bill has been welcomed by the mangerial trade union, FUMPO—I do not know what that stands for.
In conclusion, I do not see the Bill as Opposition Members describe it, as a further step in the marginalisation of local government or as a step towards centralisation. I see it as a necessary prelude to the restoration of public confidence in local government. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tom Pendry: May I say at the outset that I do not intend to give way because I wish to make progress by completing my speech as quickly as possible so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate. The Front Bench spokesmen have not set a good example—we heard 45 minutes from the Secretary of State and then 45 minutes from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), so we have already had a 90-minute match. I must say, the second half was much better than the first.
I wish to confine my remarks in the main to parts I and II of this monstrous Bill, which directly attacks democracy by limiting the number of people who are permitted to play their rightful part in running local communities. First, I must declare an interest—I am a member of the National Union of Public Employees, which has about 400,000 members in local government, many of whom will be affected by the legislation.
First, however, I wish to express some of the fears of officers and councillors of my local council, Tameside borough, about part V of the Bill. It is good to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) here, because he knows precisely the kind of council that I am talking about. I hope that when he winds up the debate he will refer to some of the points that I shall make.
Tameside borough council took the advice of the Prime Minister when, in March of last year, in her glossy "Action for Cities" document she urged local authorities to set up a partnership with industry and to generate and help to create a new lively environment in which to live, work and prosper. Tameside council set up a partnership with local industry and began operating joint ventures with the private sector designed to promote investment and economic activity in the borough.
The council had in mind particularly establishing a joint venture company, with the council having a minority interest, to undertake a rolling programme of land development, house building, training and other initiatives. The concept of such a programme is that a percentage of profits made from profitable land development can be

ploughed back into developing land that may not provide the normal market return, building low-cost housing and funding training and other initiatives.
Under the proposals, it appears that local authorities will be prevented from taking minority interests in companies unless they fall within a specified category. Although it is proposed to permit an authority to take a minority interest in a joint venture land development company, it can retain that interest only so long as the company retains an interest in the land. For obvious reasons, such a proposal could inhibit the use of a joint venture company for the sort of rolling programme that I have outlined. Tameside council feels that that is a real obstacle to the sort of initiatives that it and other councils wish to take.
Generally, the proposals will further restrict a council's ability to act commercially in partnership with the private sector in economic development. I hope that the Minister will consider more carefully the implications of part V of the Bill before rushing ahead with it in its present form. The Government seem to say that they do not want to inhibit such joint ventures, but if the regulations are introduced in line with the proposals, they will make partnerships much more difficult to construct. I am sure that many local authorities will be discouraged from participating.
Other parts of the Bill are equally badly drafted and need revision. Some have already been spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland and other hon. Members. I am particularly concerned about many of the proposals that will give more power to the Secretary of State through regulation, and less to the House of Commons.
This is merely the last in a long line of Bills—there have been 50 since 1979—increasing the power of the centre. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young): not only does the Bill lessen the powers of elected parliamentary representatives—even worse, it rides roughshod over local authority members and further restricts the number of citizens who can play a role in running and shaping the local communities in which they live.
Bearing in mind the constraints on my time, I shall deal in the rest of my speech with the implications for local democracy of parts I and II of the Bill. The provisions show, more clearly than ever, how the Government differ from their predecessors. I well remember when, in March 1973, I introduced a motion in the House aimed at allowing the election of most public servants to the office of councillor, thus allowing the community to benefit from their sense of public service, knowledge and practical experience. Clearly, the purpose of the motion was to seek a change in the qualification laws which then debarred an estimated 2·5 million to 3 million local government workers from standing for their local authorities—about 11·8 per cent. of all employees in England and Wales at the time.
During the passage of the 1972 Local Government Bill, the then Minister, the late Graham Page, made some commitments. He said:
I do not believe that, at a certain level of employment or in a certain area of employment by local authority, if an employee stands as a member, there is any serious chance of failure of integrity or lack of probity. As has been pointed out, there are many occasions where a person employed in private undertakings becomes a member and he may be just as suspect. There is a wide area where the employee of the local


authority cannot possibly be said to he suspect if he becomes a member."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 February 1972, c. 1492.]
On Report, he went on to say:
My own feeling about it is that we are being extremely hypocritical if we exclude all employees of the local authority and do not exclude others who have, perhaps, a greater interest in the affairs of the council".—[Official Report, 17 July 1972; Vol. 841, c. 213.]
I am sure that we can all hazard a guess at the people to whom he was referring.
In the 1973 debate in this Chamber, which I initiated, the then Minister gave a major commitment on the Floor of the House. He promised an all-party study to look into matters relating to membership of local authorities, with discussions including local authority associations, staff organisations and other interested groups. What became of that promise?
Even the Redcliff-Maud report of 1974 stated bluntly that the key proposal before us today was wrong. The report's conclusion was that the concept of a dividing line for the selective removal of disqualification of employees was an illusion. I feel that it is not so much illusory as ludicrous. The Government are not only at odds with the 1970–74 regime, but with in-depth studies carried out since. At the same time, they have ensured that about 70,000 local government employees will be added to the list of those ineligible to stand for local government.
How can it be right, for example, for a refuse lorry driver in Wandsworth, working for a private company called Team Waste, to be allowed to stand for the council, be elected and influence decisions, while his counterpart in Lambeth cannot?
Let us suppose that a local government blue collar worker, such as a school caretaker in a large community school, earned £13,000 in 1989 and was elected to his council. The following year, due to the increased community use of his school, he earned £13,600. Would he have to come off the council? He certainly would not be allowed to stand for re-election, even though he might be a very effective councillor by then. Another example is the county roadworks foreman working for his local authority who, because of adverse weather conditions, works all the hours possible and takes his earnings over the £13,500 level. Would he, too, have to resign? Could he stand again in 1991 if his earnings dropped below the magical figure due to a mild winter?
The snooper whom the Secretary of State appoints to oversee this ludicrous situation will certainly have to be an unscrupulous autocrat. Will council employees have to present their wage slips to this particular commissar before they can stand for their local authority or before they are allowed to go on the streets to canvass in a local election? This legislation is another example of how the Centre for Policy Studies has got the Government's legislation all wrong.
With this Bill, the Government have launched into the next stage of an ideological crusade against local authorities and those who work for them. If only half the energy that they expend on controlling the activities of democratically elected councils were spent aiding efficient and responsible authorities such as my own by giving them partnership or programme area status, they could help authorities to tackle the many and varied problems in my part of the world instead of hampering them still further by this kind of punitive legislation.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I want to begin by following on a point. made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who unfortunately is not with us. He quoted from the Association of District Councils' brief and called it in aid of his contention that the Bill was about centralised control. The sentence he quoted was:
the net effect would appear to be more power to the Secretary of State and even less freedom for local authorities.
That quote in fact came from a section referring only to part IX of the Bill. The remaining parts of the Bill scent to be broadly welcomed by the Association of District Councils, and I think it only fair, as vice-president of the Association of District Councils, that I should take this opportunity to quote the whole of that sentence. It begins:
It is difficult to tell precisely what is envisaged but".
That, of course, is the difficulty, because one can well understand why local authorities want at this stage each and every detail of how the legislation will work to he made available to them but, of course, the House must be free, through its Standing Committee system, to review the legislation and to debate precisely these points so that the legislation comes back to the House as a whole and so that it can be properly implemented in law. I do not believe that the main bulk of the legislation in the Bill itself should have all that detail. It would be quite wrong; it would be inflexible and very difficult to alter in the future.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) began by referring to the 50 Bills that have been considered during the lifetime of this Conservative Government. He fell short of describing it as "the golden age of local government", but of course, that is exactly what we are seeking to achieve. That golden age of local government, a second golden age, can be achieved only if we have local government of integrity and efficiency, and this legislation, like so many other pieces of legislation, has been designed with that in mind.
I have served on the Standing Committees on the vast majority of local government Bills since I entered the House in 1983, and I suppose that it is a sign of the times that I now find my self reviewing legislation that I voted for in the first place. There is nothing wrong with that, because it means that one learns from experience and makes sure that anomalies which turn up from legislation, or things that councillors—particularly Labour councillors—get up to in some of the London boroughs in particular, can be dealt with as and when they arise. As I said in an intervention earlier, there are Labour councillors who are out to get through every loophole in the law, and these things will of course have to be reviewed from time to time.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Does the hon. Member view with equanimity the activities of the Conservative-controlled Westminster city council? Is he happy with the situation in which Lady Porter is able to give a massive payoff to her ex-chief executive in order to keep his mouth shut? Is that a matter in which the Secretary of State ought perhaps to intervene as soon as possible in order to defend the interests of the hard-pressed ratepayers of Westminster?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) had been here for the last three hours, like myself and my hon. Friends, instead of drifting in for five minutes, he would be aware of the fact that that subject has


been raised before, and he would also be aware that what he and his hon. Friends are suggesting is that the chief executive of Westminster city council should be deprived of what he has paid for in his contributions to his pension fund. I think that would be wholly wrong, but it would be typical of the Labour party's attitude to individual rights.

Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I have just dealt with his point.
Local government is far too important to simply drift along. It employs 3 million people and is responsible for one quarter of all public spending. That means that it has to be efficient and has to be demonstrated as being accountable. That is why I and my hon. Friends supported the community charge and the rate-capping legislation. We are one-nation Conservatives, who do not believe in throwing the ratepayers of Socialist boroughs to the wolves who are so uninterested in value for money.
Many points in the Bill have been considered in detail in the speeches of my hon. Friends, but there are some which have not been covered, and I should particularly like to refer to those. First, there is reference in the Bill, and rightly so, to controls over arm's-length and semi-arm's-length companies operated by local authorities, but there is no mention whatever of what I view as one of the biggest scandals of all—the Municipal and Mutual Assurance Company. Any of my hon. Friends, and, I dare say, Opposition Members who have taken up constituents' cases with that company, will have found that it does not pay out even when there is every justification. Of course, there is no reason why it should, because it is mutual, it has a captive market and it has money coming automatically from the local authorities. It has absolutely no reason to be interested in the public perception of it, and that is why it treats constituents of mine and of other Members like dirt. That needs to be dealt with.
I should also like to make one small reference to the doctrine of proportionality that has now come into the Bill. I think, broadly speaking, that it is right and proper, but I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to bear in mind the consequences of this action in places such as Hertfordshire, where the Labour-controlled county council has said that it wishes to eliminate all school governors who are not members of the Conservative, Labour or Alliance parties. I think that would be a great pity, because there must be a role on outside bodies, particularly school governing bodies, for people with no political affiliation or people whose political affiliation is not known or has been prevented from being disclosed. That is a Committee point which I think my right hon. and hon. Friends should consider.
Another point I feel strongly about, although it is a very minor issue, is the reference to the Welsh titles of districts. Of course, overwhelmingly English-speaking districts in Wales have to have their titles in both English and Welsh, education has to be conducted in English and Welsh, and many of their officers have to be fluent in both. If that is the case in overwhelmingly English-speaking districts, why in overwhelmingly Welsh-speaking districts should they not have to abide by bilingualism as well? That seems to me to be perfectly fair.
I also support the one reference in the Bill which is not really about the Department of the Environment or local government at all. It is the one giving powers to the Audit Commission to look at the Health Service. I said in an Adjournment debate almost a year ago, talking about value for money:
One reason for health authorities not grasping these opportunities, except sporadically or under direction from central Government, is the absence of a parallel system to that of the Audit Commission. I believe that investment in a series of best practice units enabled to look at each health authority and make recommendations for action would repay itself many times over."—[Official Report, 28 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 602.]
The then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) kindly said that she would look at that point, and I must take this opportunity of welcoming what the Government have announced in their White Paper and for which we shall be legislating in the Bill. The principle of Audit Commission work will be extended into the Health Service. I am sure that it will be very useful indeed.
The Bill has so many parts in it that it is almost impossible to deal with it in a Second Reading speech without going on ad nauseum, but I should like to say that I have served 11 years in local government; I have served on Conservative-controlled authorities, Labour-controlled and independent-controlled authority. All the councillors in those authorities were respected, irrespective of their party, for their integrity and commitment to the community. Sadly, that has been swept away in some local authorities, particularly in London. For that reason, and many others, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Whenever we see the latest Bill with "Local Government" on the cover, we know that it will be a thoroughly malicious and pretty distasteful measure that will deprive local people of a few more of their rights to run their own affairs. We also know that we can expect that any new housing Bill will embody the same depressing philosophy, with some variation of the theme of destroying the power of local councils to provide good, cheap housing for those who require and want it.
Will the Minister confirm or deny when he winds up the debate whether, where no housing subsidy is payable to a local authority and the housing revenue account has a credit balance, that balance can be transferred to the rate fund? If that is so, it will mean that the ring-fencing proposals in the Bill will be one-way ring fencing.
Even social security has not been quite so heavily legislated against as local government and housing. In every year since 1983, there have been local government Bills and housing Bills as the Conservative party has thought of progressively worse things to do to local government and housing. There have been 15 bad Bills in only five years, but this year there is something new: the Local Government and Housing Bill—two evils rolled into one, or vindictiveness squared. I am sorry to have to say that the Bill lives up to that potential.
This two-subject Bill is a product of the Government's desire to cut down on meaningful discussion. No doubt their thinking went something like this: "Why have two Bills? Why have two Second Readings? Why have two Standing Committees? We can push it quickly through Parliament with only one of each." The fact that the


Government have created a 144-clause, 11-schedule, 187-page monster in the process is probably all the better. In that way, there is always the possibility that the public might miss something.
What nobody can miss about this Bill, however, is that the desire for minimum debate has provided us with a real junk yard of a measure. The average junk yard is usually stacked full of assorted bits of debris bearing absolutely no relation to each other. The only reason that they are together is because of the whim of the owner of the junk yard. The Local Government and Housing Bill is no different, except that in place of the broken fridges and old bath tubs there are restictions on co-opting on to committees and the cuts in improvement grants. All this unrelated ideological debris from the Secretary of State for the Environment has something else in common with the junk yard. It, too, is mostly old, tatty and useless.
The Bill is dangerous in many ways. That much we have grown to expect, although not to accept, from the Conservative party. Like some of its predecessor local government Bills, however, this one goes further than that. It seems to be a growing trend— a test of political virility, almost—for each new local government Bill to carry something that is sinister along with much that is just dangerous, as though that were not bad enough on its own.
Last year, for example, there was the nasty clause 29. That was bad enough, but it was only one clause and it was almost so stupid as to be unenforceable. However, the 1989 sinister quotient has gone up to a whole part—one fifth of the entire Bill. Part I has serious implications for the civil liberties of thousands of people. Because of the shortness of my allotted time—[Interruption.] I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) a maximum of 10 minutes—it is mostly on that part that I wish to concentrate.
Part I mounts a sweeping two-pronged attack on the rights of councils and their employees. The second prong of the attack is the denial to councillors of adequate facilities to govern. I shall turn to that point in a moment. The first prong of the attack is even worse. Anyone who works for any council on a salary of £13,500 or more will be breaking the law if he or she indulges in political activity of any kind. The Secretary of State was kind enough to explain to the press why he thought he needed such a colossus of a restriction. It would, he said, stop councils appointing political henchmen to key officer posts, but the absurdly low starting point takes in far more people than that.
The average wage for a secretary in London, for example, is not much less than £13,500 a year. Does a 22-year-old draughtsman on £14,000 a year in the engineers department of a local council count as a key officer post? Will he have to let an exemption officer, whom the Secretary of State may appoint, decide whether he can join Friends of the Earth, for example? I suppose that we ought to be grateful that people working in education, at least, are to be exempted automatically from the ban, but I have to tell the Secretary of State that his enormously magnanimous gesture might not mean much. Thanks to the policies of his colleague at the Department of Education and Science, I have yet to meet a schoolteacher who earns more than £13,500 a year.
As if ashamed of even this little concession, the Bill quickly throws another outrageous clause at us. Clause 2(3) provides that one does not even have to earn £13,500

a year to be politically victimised if one is involved with the media, or if the public might reasonably infer that one is in a position to influence things—even if one is not actually in such a position.
All that shows the appallingly wide extent of the Secretary of State's reforms, an extent that seems to be wildly out of proportion when compared with the problems—if any problems exist at all. The proposed restrictions will cover 70,000 people who are working in local government, the immense majority of whom are in posts of no sensitivity whatsoever. Their politics, if they have any, have never given any ratepayer a moment's concern. Their democratic freedoms should not be restricted so needlessly. Seventy thousand people is over 15 per cent. of all local authority, non-education salaried staff. If that number of people were all raving revolutionaries, the country would have been in chaos a long time ago.
There is another dimension to the arbitrary and sweeping nature of the proposals. I have already talked about numbers and salaries. There is no doubt that the Bill goes much too wide in that direction, but what about the political dimension? What will the Bill actually ban the 70,000 employees from doing? The simple answer is that we do not know; we have not been told. At least on the numerical side, the Bill lays out exactly how sweepingly awful it will be—it says clearly who will be affected—but politically, the only thing that restricted persons are explicitly forbidden to do is become a councillor or a Member of Parliament. The rest come under the catch-all subsection (5) of clause 1, which says that each affected person will have to obey such requirements
as may be prescribed…by the Secretary of State.'
No hint is given of what the requirements might include. I consider that to be an outrage to the authority of this House. When such an important human freedom as the right to participate fully in democracy is being discussed, we should know exactly what we are voting on. We must know just how far the Government propose to curtail freedom. I call on the Government to declare just what they propose to do with the powers that they are asking for this evening. Meanwhile, in the absence of any such guidance, I shall assume that they intend to adopt the proposals that were published last summer in their response to the Widdicombe report.
That may be too narrow an assumption. The number of politically restricted people in the Bill goes far beyond the original proposals. Perhaps the nature of the Government's restrictions will also go far beyond the original proposals. Even the original proposals were bad enough. Nobody in the restricted group would be able to hold office in any political party, speak or write publicly on matters of controversy, or even canvass in local elections. The last of those restrictions is particularly ludicrous. Somehow, I cannot see British local government being brought to its knees by a 22-year-old trainee draughtsman handing out leaflets in the high street. But the draughtsman might well be brought to his knees by the knowledge that he was less of a citizen than his exact counterpart who happened to work for ICI.
Anybody wishing to stand for a council or for Parliament would have to leave his job. This might have prevented the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) from ever reaching a selection committee, let alone the Government Front Bench. In her previous incarnation she was a social worker—a job she held right


up to the election—and, given her undoubted talents, she would almost certainly be earning more than £13,500 a year by now. Whether the hon. Lady worked for a local authority or for a health authority, the point is that at least eight of her colleagues on the Benches opposite and many Members on this side came here by a path that will now be closed under this Bill.
The Local Government and Housing Bill shows us once again how badly the Government suffer from the sledge-hammer-and-nut syndrome. This one is not quite in the league of the abolition of an entire tier of government just to get rid of Mr. Livingstone—now my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East—but it does its best. Seventy thousand people are to be neutered to deal with the impartiality requirement in respect of, at most, 10,000 senior officers, most of whom are far too professional to be political anyway. What is worse, 70,000 people are to be prevented from being councillors in order to deal with, at most, 1,000 twin trackers, as they are called—and that is throughout the whole country.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that an element of malice is involved in this legislation. Nobody is claiming that local government is perfect. Indeed, in scope, one or two of its more serious misjudgments even begin to rival those of central Government. The trouble with this Bill is that it does not deal with those. Would it have stopped Westminster city council selling its cemeteries and its housing stock to developers?
The other trouble with this Bill is its double standards. For example, if Brent borough council were to engage a secret police force, keep closed files on all its ratepayers and refuse to release key committee minutes, or if Lambeth borough council's leader were to surround himself, at public expense, with a kitchen cabinet of flunkies and were to employ news manipulators on the Bernard Ingham model, and if all this came out, there would certainly be a case for legislation. But Brent and Lambeth are not responsible for those blows against democracy; somebody else is, and what an irony it is when one considers that the person who is responsible is also the person who sees fit to preach from on high about what local councils may and may not do.

Mr. David Nicholson: I shall not follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) in his rather lurid attacks on the first part of the Bill, although I shall say something about that in a moment.
In this huge and complex Bill there is much to welcome, but I want later to reflect the concern of my own Conservative-controlled local authority in Taunton Deane and, no doubt, of the local authorities of a number of my hon. Friends, regarding aspects of the housing parts of this Bill. Going by comment outside, those parts are seen to have limited sex appeal but are extremely important for the future of our society. I will not go so far as to describe them as a curate's egg—first, because we have heard rather too much about eggs recently, and, secondly, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will reply to this debate, is a far greater expert on ecclesiastical matters than I am.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on his blitzkrieg in Somerset last week. I

understand that his thoughtful response made an excellent impression on Taunton's councillors, who raised with him the concerns to which I shall refer later. He also, rightly, chided the overspending Somerset county council for its missed opportunities and for the burdens it has imposed on business and domestic ratepayers.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who led for the Opposition, indulged in a variety of selective statistics, selective anecdotes and scare stories. I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate, (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and, indeed, the Minister of State in interventions, largely answered the rather exaggerated points made by the hon. Member.
I come now to the Widdicombe clauses of this Bill. I welcome the implementation of so much that was in the Widdicombe report. The hon. Member for City of Durham denied that there were large numbers of revolutionaries in local government, but he completely missed the point. The purpose of the measure that he is so angry about is to eliminate from political activity council officials who are in positions of some responsibility to the public. This would not need to apply to a private sector organisation, but it does apply to the public service. Twenty years ago, I myself was a civil servant for a short time. I certainly had to subscribe to those principles and I believe that they are right.
We can argue in Committee where precisely the line should be drawn. There may be some points to be debated, but in principle the Government are right, and the fact that these measures from the Widdicombe report are included in the Bill shows that this Government are committed to protecting and promoting decent, fair and democratic local government—and that too is being denied at times by the Opposition. I believe that most local authorities—my own, certainly—will welcome those passages of the Bill. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in his place because, in an article at the weekend, to which the Secretary of State referred, he acknowledged that there have been "instances arousing public disquiet", with which this legislation is designed to deal. We are grateful for that.
The decline in the standards prevailing in local government since the late 1960s has a close influence on the decline of the major party opposite, the Labour party in that period and the parroting of Labour party criticism of this Bill by the SLD spokesmen simply shows how far the Liberal party has shifted to the Left. I hope that this will be noted by the electors of Richmond and by the people voting in the county council elections this spring.

Mr. Soley: They will vote Labour.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Why should voters in any county council elections vote Labour or Liberal when those parties have just agreed a pact?

Mr. Nicholson: We shall see. The Labour and Liberal parties have been exchanging voters for the last 10 years.
I turn now to housing, which, in fact, was the subject of my maiden speech, 18 months ago, on the Second Reading of last year's Housing Bill. Again, there is much to welcome in the Bill and in recent relevant announcements. I have in mind the statement last week by the Minister of Housing, the noble Lord, Lord Caithness, on low-cost rural housing, for which I have been pressing for some time, and which is of considerable significance to parts of


my constituency. It is again an indication of a responsive Government that they are stepping up measures to provide low-cost housing, where it is needed, in sparsely populated rural areas. That is very welcome.
I welcome also the improvement grant provisions in the Bill. It is encouraging and important that the improvement grant system should be revised and restructured. The English house condition survey of 1986 provided evidence of the need to target help in this respect. In England alone, half of all households lacking basic amenities, one third of those in unfit properties. and over one quarter in properties in disrepair, had annual net incomes below £3,000 in 1986. That shows just how much of a link there is between low income and poor housing. Therefore, the Government are right to proceed down the route of means-testing.
I have two questions for the Minister on this. Does he envisage that local authorities, such as the two in my constituency, which cannot at the moment provide discretionary improvement grants, will be enabled to do so by the provisions of the Bill for the categories of householders who need help? Secondly, can the Minister say where the line will be drawn regarding low income? There are plenty of people on low incomes who do not qualify for income support but who should qualify for these grants.
My local authority and my Conservative councillors in Taunton are very much concerned about the capital provisions in the Bill. I repeat what I have said before: what is sauce for the inner-city goose is not necessarily sauce for the shire-county gander. These concerns are shared by other efficient and socially concerned district councils, usually Conservative-controlled. They are worried about their ability, after 1990, to fulfil their statutory housing duties.
I wish to quote from a resolution by Taunton council last autumn. It was proposed by the leader of the council, Mr. Meikle, and seconded by the chairman of the housing committee, both of them highly respected local government members. They are concerned at the implications which will arise after April 1990,
on the supposition that the tenants of a local authority have opted to remain with their local council as their landlord, it cannot be good government…not to be able to spend proper sums on the repair and renewal and improvement of the housing stock…This must imply a need for capital injection over the future years. The consultation paper…makes it impossible for many authorities to achieve this objective. As a local authority which from before 1979 has promoted the national legislation in housing, notably the sale of council houses, …we now see as almost a certainty that councils like ourselves, who have built up large capital receipts, will have our 'permissions to borrow' cut back".
[Interruption.] This is not all joy for the Labour party. The council's concern is made sharper by the contrast with Labour councils.
My council says:
these same areas mainly Labour Party dominated have done everything in their power for nine years to slow down the sale of council houses, thus purposefully preventing themselves from building up capital receipts from which they could have now benefited. It would appear yet again that district councils may lose resources because of a small minority of left-wing councils nationwide.
With regard to the contrast between reasonably efficient district councils and some of the inner-city Labour-dominated councils, I am happy that the Government have not gone as far as some of my hon.

Friends feared they might last autumn and shifted capital resources from rural or semi-rural district authorities to the inner cities. We are grateful for that.
The right-to-buy figures give a telling contrast. About a month ago, I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State what proportion of council housing stock, as at 1 January 1980, had been sold under the right to buy legislation in various authorities. In Somerset, the proportion ranges from 18·7 per cent. to 26·5 per cent.; in Devon from 20·6 per cent. to 25·5 per cent.; in Dorset from 17·9 per cent. to 30·5 per cent.; and in Wiltshire from 17 per cent. to 24·2 per cent. I contrast those with the figures for certain London boroughs. In the London borough of Camden it was 2·6 per cent.; in Islington 3·4 per cent.: in Lambeth 1·5 per cent.; and in Southwark 3·5 per cent.
There is an extraordinary contrast. It militates against the Labour party, but it also shows the difficulty for certain Conservative authorities, which have implemented the right to buy, in meeting needs from the waiting list.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Nicholson: I am anxious to finish so that l may accommodate the hon. Gentleman.
My local authority has disposed of its land so it cannot carry out new build or offer land to housing associations for building. The number of council properties in its ownership fell from 8,504 in April 1987 to 8,243 in April 1988. The number is expected to fall by 400 or 500 each year for the next two or three years while the number on the waiting list, which is realistically composed, has risen steadily. Last Saturday, half my surgery cases had come to me because of housing problems. That was the highest proportion I had encountered in my 18 months as a Member of Parliament. I am finding that it is increasingly difficult to accommodate the housing needs of my constituents—for example, young people, perhaps with a baby, who are living with their parents.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about housing problems in my constituency, which I think are paralleled by the problems in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends. We are talking about a totally different administrative activity or political motivation than exists in many Labour-dominated conurbations. I welcome much of the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is to follow me but, in view of the time restriction which he has imposed on his hon. Friends, I shall not keep him any longer from his speech or his dinner.

Mr. Tony Banks: It takes a little manipulation, certainly on this side, for everyone to get in, but I am glad to have been able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to make sure that the next Conservative Member does not have to suffer me for very long.
I find it strange that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) should say that the Labour party and the Liberal party have changed and that that is why local government has changed. He does not recognise for a moment that there has been any change in the political complexion of the Conservative party. There has not been such an authoritarian, Right-wing Conservative Government since the war, so it is not surprising that there has been a marked change in the attitude of people


involved in local government. They have been forced on to the defensive to try to defend jobs and services against the most appalling attacks made upon them personally as councillors and collectively as councils. The hon. Member could do his case more justice if he recognised that there have been major changes on his side which have created all the problems in local government today.
I dream of the constituency problems of the hon. Gentleman. It would be wonderful for me to have the problems that he has in Taunton. If he thinks that a few housing problems are beginning to creep into his constituency, he should come to Newham, where 80 per cent. of my constituency cases relate to housing. The local authority that I represent in Newham has seen its bed-and-breakfast payments go up from £52,000 in 1983 to about £5·5 million today. We cannot solve our housing problems in Newham without massive central Government support, but we do not receive that support. All that we get is abuse and attack from central Government. The hon. Gentleman will not know the way of the world unless he comes to the inner cities of London, Leeds and Manchester.

Mr. David Nicholson: One point that I did not mention but which was extremely relevant is this. I do not know the figures for Newham, but in many of the Labour-controlled boroughs in inner London and elsewhere there are large numbers of council properties that are vacant for long periods or are not effectively used, and large numbers of vacant privately owned properties. We hope that the private rent legislation will revive such properties. That is why there is a problem in the hon. Gentleman's area and elsewhere in London.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman knows that the largest number of vacant properties in London is in the private sector, and they are mostly houses waiting to be sold. With property prices as high as they are in London, there is no way that anyone will rent out those properties—because the sort of people who could pay the rents could afford to pay the mortgages. In those circumstances, the idea that people will come off the housing waiting list and move into those private properties is palpable nonsense even for the hon. Member for Taunton.
The hon. Member for Taunton mentioned the proportions of housing stock sold by local authorities and quoted a number of very low percentages in London boroughs. The hon. Gentleman should know the state of some of the stock in those boroughs. Newham has 110 tower blocks, and there is no great rush of people waiting to buy a flat 20 storeys up in a tower block in Newham. That is another reason for the proportion sold being low. Those blocks were built in the 1960s and 1970s by the private sector and some of the building standards were appalling. The builders included Taylor Woodrow—and also Anglian which has now gone bankrupt. Taylor Woodrow is a well-known supporter of the Conservative party and inflicted jerry building on the London borough of Newham.
There are words that one is simply not allowed to use in this House: "lying", "cheating" and "hypocritical". Those are words that one could not apply to hon. Members without being disciplined. However, I would say that those words are most appropriate in respect of the

Government's policies towards local government. It is lying, cheating and hypocritical for the Government to say that the Bill is all about improving local government and restoring the standards of local government. This Government have done more than any other to destroy the standards of public service, both at a national and at a local level. The Bill is but the latest line in the voluminous epitaph currently being written on the tombstone of local democracy.
The Government's clinical dismembering of local democracy has proceeded through a number of stages. It has proceeded through propaganda and abuse, which is echoed through the gutter press. It has proceeded through financial assault upon local authorities' affairs, forcing local authorities anxious to defend jobs and services into high rate levels. They can then be attacked by central Government as being profligate and spending too much money. Those authorities can then be financially penalised through rate capping and other financial devices. Another alleged way of improving local government is to abolish it. That seems to be the Government's attitude. We have now reached the point where the civil rights of councillors and officers are to be seriously curtailed.
The assault on local government by the present Government has been unmatched in the past 100 years. I believe that the motivation is simple. It stems from a malignant intolerance of opposition, which actually starts at No. 10 Downing street and works its way through. The Prime Minister believes that she cannot be wrong. Because she believes that, anybody who opposes her—whether from the Opposition or one of her right hon. or hon. Friends—must by definition be wrong. The Prime Minister is a natural autocrat and surrounded, of course, by a bunch of sycophants, many of whom have betrayed everything in which they once claimed to believe.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is one.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman has not actually practised sycophancy, he is a natural sycophant. I am not, therefore, pointing the finger specifically at him. It is the Government Front Bench that I am thinking about now.
I have read the comments of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I believe that he is one of the most arrogant men in this House. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is one of the few people I know who can actually strut sitting down. He attends the Young Conservatives conference—the Tory party equivalent of the Hitler youth—and talks about the bully boys in local government who he claims are somehow thwarting the Government's ambitions to get schools to opt out of local education authority control. That level of hypocrisy is breathtaking, and it comes from a Government who harass, threaten, intimidate and insult elected councillors. Having sat through virtually every local government Bill and order since 1983, and many of the Committees—I hope that if the Committee of Selection draws my name out tomorrow I shall be a member of the Committee on this Bill—and having watched the Government and Conservative Members, it appears that they will change every rule and plumb every depth to achieve their political objectives.
I remember the Prime Minister in 1979—she had not actually reached her St. Francis of Assisi stage then—


saying that the next Conservative Government would take Whitehall off the back of town halls. Fifty local government Bills later, can any Conservative Member say that that has been the direction of Conservative party policy since 1979? Can any Conservative Member honestly say that what we have seen since 1979 has been Whitehall being taken off the backs of the town halls?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Department of the Environment in 1979 to 1981, with my noble Friend Lord Bellwin, removed about 90 restrictions from local government. It was because local authorities such as the GLC ratted on their obligations that further legislation became necessary. They brought it upon themselves.

Mr. Banks: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he gave way to me. I wish that he had been here at the beginning because he would surely recognise that this Conservative Government are further to the Right than any since the war. They are an authoritarian, centralising Government who believe that the Prime Minister cannot be wrong. If the Prime Minister says that it must be done, Conservative Members will do it. If the Prime Minister wanted to add an eighth day to the week, she would get a majority in the Division Lobby. Conservative Members are not independent accountable Members of Parliament—they are just a bunch of followers, time-servers and sycophants who will give the Prime Minister anything she wants, including the destruction of local democracy that we have seen since 1979. All the problems of local government stem from the policies of central Government. The Bill is yet one further attempt to dismantle local democracy and accountability. I look forward to being on the Committee to argue the case in more detail than I have today.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: It is almost three years since I took the Widdicombe report on holiday. It is not a light read, either in fact or in content, but I welcome the Government's courage in bringing forward the vast bulk of its proposals.
The House now has the opportunity to set a new pattern for the conduct of local authority business into the future. I do, however, have a more personal interest in seeing this most important matter coming before the House. In 1984 I set up a working party to examine apparent abuses in local government. The result was the publication of "The New Corruption", which the Secretary of State for the Environment of the time, now Lord Jenkin of Roding, acknowledged both in this House and on public platforms as a major factor in the setting-up of the Widdicombe committee. In addition to the pamphlet, a portfolio of evidence was submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration.
I should like to record the particular interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who made a typically worthy contribution to the debate earlier. He was then the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. He endorsed the project and monitored its progress and his well-known fair-mindedness was a constant encouragement at a time when local government was not considered a politically exciting issue. At that time

those living in the shires or the leafy suburbs did not have a clue what we were talking about. I fear that that is still true.
The background to this debate is well known. The election of the Tory Government in 1979 precipitated the predictable clash with the trade union movement, and, less predictably, confrontation with forces in local government, which were increasingly hostile to the philosophy of the incoming Government. I can say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that the role of local government was described in a "London Labour Briefing" of February 1982 as
a weapon in the class struggle'.
It was also described in a Greater London council publication of April 1984 as
an efficient means of redistributing resources".
That role was under threat, and as the emotional level rose, so did the stakes. The Government questioned the propriety of the actions and the funding of council campaigns, and the councils hit back. By the time of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, no less than £15 million of ratepayers' money had been swallowed up by the campaigns to prevent the demise of the mega-councils. That represents more than the total amount spent by all the political parties in the 1983 general election campaign. To some extent Patrick Jenkin became a victim of the system he attacked.
I have no wish to revive the old party political hobby horses about the questionable causes to which ratepayers' funds were committed. We could all trot out familiar phrases, but the "propaganda on the rates" issue was largely tackled by the Local Government Act 1986 following Widdicombe's interim report. I welcome the fact that the thrust of that report has been continued in part III of the Bill.
We should not forget that for many hitherto politically unaware people it seemed that an almost alien creed had been superimposed on the traditional structure of local government, whether run by traditional Labour or Tory councils. To have a red flag flying over the town hall in Islington a few hundred yards from my house was a cultural and a political shock. It educated me and many of my colleagues who sharpened their political teeth in Islington.
"The New Corruption", so named to draw a distinction between that and the old-style personal financial corruption, was written from a particular political viewpoint. Many of the malpractices identified, however, could have been perpetrated in the future by parties diametrically opposed to those around in the 1980s which were able to set in place an apparatus, fully funded by the ratepayer, to challenge central Government. The long-established convention of properly run local government, serving a particular community, was under threat. I hear some mutterings from the Opposition Benches and lest anyone should doubt the force of my argument I refer to the Fabian Society tract "Managing Local Socialism", which was published in 1986 and which quoted my work with approval.
Legislation—necessary only because of the misconduct of various councils—must be put in place to restore a proper framework. As the cry, "Yes, Minister" has become a catchphrase, now is the time to say "No, councillor". I congratulate the Secretary of State on producing the Bill hard on the heels of so many other radical changes in the structure and funding of local


government. It is recognition of the fact that the operation of the new system will be prejudiced in the absence of a proper ethical grounding.
I shall confine my remarks to the first three parts of the Bill in so far as they derive from the Widdicombe report. Perhaps the most important part of the Bill is the recognition given to the status of the chief executive, described somewhat coyly in the Bill as the:
head of the authority's paid service".
He may also be designated as the monitoring officer. Amidst all this jargon is the core of the thinking behind the Bill—the necessity for someone in an authority to be able to blow the whistle if prima facie malpractices are identified, without risking the sack.
The chief executive needs and deserves the protection of the Bill and from this rightly privileged position much else flows. The traditional political neutrality of him and his colleagues is established by their appointment on merit alone. Furthermore, their designation as holding "politically restricted posts" will disqualify them from seeking elected office. After all, no reasonable observer would think it right for senior local government officers to be politically active elsewhere. The ludicrous practice of what I described as "cross-employment"—that description has now been overtaken by two less elegant ones, "dual tracking" or "twin tracking", which have a transatlantic ring about them—will be brought to an end. No longer will an officer in one council be able to sit as a councillor on a neighbouring council with the inevitable conflict of interests that have been pointed out by many of my hon. Friends. If a politically sensitive appointment is judged appropriate and is made on merit, everyone knows about it and it is all in the open.
Many other measures are long overdue. Why should co-opted members on committees have the right to vote? Why should the political balance on councils not be reflected in the make-up of committees? Of course party caucuses can have deliberate meetings, but why on earth should decisions ever be made in camera? All those issues, which would seem ordinary common sense and fair play to the man in the street, are now addressed in the Bill.

Ms. Abbott: It will not do to criticise, by implication, Labour councils without thinking carefully of the practices of some Conservative councils. I served for four years on Westminster city council which was in the habit of taking crucial decisions in camera—it still does. What is more, whatever the alleged iniquities of Labour authorities, now and in the past, we have never stooped to peddling cemeteries at 15p apiece.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I can give joy to the hon. Lady, because all my remarks apply equally to all councils whatever their political persuasion and equally to any alleged cases of malpractice by Tory or Labour-controlled councils.
To put the mind of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West at rest, and so that I do not appear sycophantic, there are two areas in which I believe the Government are being unusually timid—one does not usually apply that adjective to this Administration. First, I refer to the updating of the national code of local government conduct, which is covered in clause 23. If the purpose of the code is to encourage councillors to avoid

conflict of interests, I am at a loss to understand why it should not incorporate a compulsory register of non-pecuniary as well as pecuniary interests. That would stamp out many abuses whereby funds have been voted to particular organisations in which councillors have an interest, perhaps as paid workers. In the past complex networks had been built up amounting almost to a sub-culture rather than genuine voluntary service.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Give an example.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I anticipated the hon. Gentleman because I shall call in aid the evidence given to the Royal Commission on the standards of conduct in public life by the Society of Labour Lawyers, no less.
The second area in which the Government appear to have been timid relates to standing orders. Given the widespread and well-documented manipulation of standing orders in various councils, I am somewhat dismayed that according to clause 16 the Secretary of State "may" require authorities to adopt certain procedures.
Why not have a compulsory element to protect the interests which after all are there to protect minority parties? Copies of my booklet will be available—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Tony Banks: In the Vote Office?

Mr. Goodson-Wickes: Perhaps not in the Vote Office; but they will be available from me, if the hon. Gentleman cares to cross my path. I shall even peg it at a level of £2·25. In these days of low inflation, I shall gladly peg the price and hon. Members can line up for it.
With those reservations, on which I shall value the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I applaud his further move towards better financial and political accountability in local government. As the community charge is a major step towards that end, so these measures will largely confine abuses to local government history, along with the embattled ratepayer who has financed them. I am confident that the previous experience of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government in Smith square, Church house and Brussels will allow him to fight successfully his latest battle to strengthen the democratic process.

Mr. David Winnick: The restriction on many local government employees standing for election to serve on another authority is yet another and major undermining of basic civil liberties by the Tory Government. Just over five years ago, there was the Government ban on union membership at GCHQ. Today, the Government propose to take away the ability of many people serving in local government to exercise their right to stand for election to a local authority or, indeed, to the House.
I understand that, although the Bill does not cover teachers—I hope that the Minister will refer to this when winding up—it is reported in at least one newspaper today that some Conservative Members believe that teachers should be included. I also understand that the Government are considering some sort of compromise in Committee, whereby head teachers would be caught by such a ban.
It is certainly not for this Government, of all Governments, to talk about jobs for the boys. The


Government have filled every conceivable type of public appointment with their supporters and sympathisers. Without exception, all the quangos, for instance, have been packed with those who have close connections with the Tory party. When it comes to appointments to these and other bodies, the basic criterion is clear. The words of the Prime Minister are well known: "Is he or she one of us?" That is the only criterion that counts. The use of prime ministerial and ministerial patronage has been as extensive and corrupting under this administration as the sale of honours by Lloyd-George.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell us what was the criterion used by the Labour Government when they appointed Lord Wigg to be chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, or Lord Thomson of Monifieth to be chairman of the IBA, or Lord Aylestone to be chairman of the IBA before him? Numerous other Labour Members were created peers and made chairmen of quangos. What was the criterion used there?

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, can go into the Library and look up all the appointments that were made by the previous Labour Government and those made by this Government. He will find that certain appointments were indeed made by the Labour Government of Labour supporters and former Ministers. That has never been unknown in previous Administrations. I am not denying that it happened under Labour. Clearly it did so. But it has gone much, much further under this Government. That is the very point.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Winnick: I shall not give way again.
The very point that I am trying to make is not that political appointments by a Government were unknown, but that under this Government they have become so extensive and corrupting. It is interesting to note that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, said very recently in a debate on the Official Secrets Bill that the press office at 10 Downing street is being run in a corrupt way. We all know that the influence of Mr. Bernard Ingham is far greater on the Prime Minister than that of any member of the Cabinet.
The parts of the Bill that deal with housing finance are no less offensive than the matters that I have just raised. The clauses are meant to discourage many council housing tenants from staying with a local authority, because of the much higher rents that will undoubtedly be charged.
We rightly accuse the Government, although they deny it, of being in the business of doing away with the National Health Service or bringing about the position where only the poorest and most chronically sick are likely to use the service. But what cannot be brought about outright in the NHS, for purely political reasons, of course, will be achieved far more quickly with the public rented sector. The Government have made it perfectly clear in the White Paper and the consultative document that they do not believe that local authorities should be in the business of council house building. That is the big divide between the two sides of the House.
The Government also strongly believe that the number of rented dwellings in the public sector should be substantially reduced. It is hoped that in due course, with

the regular and substantial rent increases that will undoubtedly occur if the Bill becomes law, only the poorest in the community are likely to remain as council tenants. Those people are not likely to be taken in as tenants by private landlords or even by housing associations. That is the role of the local housing authorities, as the Government see it. It is quite different from what has been established over many years.
To a large extent, what I have just said is borne out by the consultative paper "New Financial Regime for Local Authority Housing in England and Wales". Paragraph 14 of the paper brings to the attention of tenants their right to exercise an option to buy a property, or what is described as a "tenants' choice". It is saying, in effect, that the Government want to see this brought about. In plain English the message could not be plainer. The Secretary of State did not deny, although he accused us of some exaggeration, that the sort of rent levels that he would like to see are those described in the White Paper and the consultative document. Therefore the message is, "If you do not like what is happening, agree to buy or vote yes to a private landlord taking over your property."
That is much like the blackmail used over housing action trusts. Council tenants have now been allowed to exercise a vote, against the Government's original wishes, as a result of the Government accepting the Lords amendment, but the blackmail used by the Secretary of State is, "Well, if you do not agree to going into a housing action trust, it is quite likely the funds will not be available from Government for your property to be brought up to modern standards." That is blackmail. We are concerned not just about the abuse of patronage but about the use of blackmail and other such tactics, which Ministers use when they are anxious to get their way.
I served on a local authority before originally becoming a Member of the House, and I know that those who serve on local authorities do so because they have a feeling of duty and responsibility, although of course there are some exceptions. In my view, that rule certainly does not apply to Lady Porter and the manner in which Westminster city council is being run in such a corrupt way.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) asked what was wrong with the contract of the chief executive who is retiring from Westminster city council. What is so offensive about it is clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, there is a clause saying, in effect, that the chief executive has a duty not to reveal anything of what has taken place. Clearly if he does so, the contract will be broken in the eyes of the leadership of Westminster city council who drew up the contract. That is what we find so offensive.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Disgraceful.

Mr. Winnick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) says, that is what we think is so disgraceful.
I do not happen to believe that there is anything wrong in the way in which local authorities have used the existing discretionary powers for contributions to be made for council housing, especially because of the substantial reduction in subsidies for local authority housing since this Government have been in office. To ring fence the housing revenue accounts of authorities in the way set out in the Bill must cause large rent increases. That of course is the major purpose of the exercise.
The change in the funding of rent rebates is equally offensive. Although the Secretary of State tried to deny it, it means in effect that the housing benefit for the poorest council tenants will be paid for by other council tenants through much higher rents. In other words, the relatively poor will subsidise the poorest in the community. It has always been accepted—by Tory Administrations as well—that assistance for the relief of poverty should come from national sources, but under the Bill it will come from council tenants who are not in receipt of benefit. That is certainly wrong. It will undoubtedly cause much hardship to those who have to bear the burden.
There are many other matters in the Bill which cannot be dealt with in a 10 or 12-minute speech on Second Reading. For example, capital receipts will be used for loan purposes, and not, as promised by a previous Secretary of State, for housing.
I cannot deal with all the issues because many other hon. Members still wish to speak, but let me say finally that Britain faces an acute housing crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people are desperate for accommodation. I make no apology for repeating this: just a short distance down the road, five or seven minutes walk away at most, tonight as on previous nights, no matter how cold it is, people are sleeping in cardboard boxes. They are by no means all tramps. Many have come to London to find work. In some cases, although not all, they have found a job but simply cannot find any accommodation, and there is nothing in the Bill that will allow them to do so.
There are many other people, as we know, living with their young children in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation in the most squalid conditions in which no one in a country such as ours should be allowed to live in the 1980s. There are many others, including some of my own constituents, not living in such bad conditions, but living with their parents or in-laws in overcrowded accommodation.
The reason is understandable. We all know it. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said that most people who come to his constituency surgeries have housing problems, and the same applies to me and my hon. Friends. Those constituents cannot afford a mortgage, even when the mortgage interest rate is not so high. They cannot afford the privately rented sector. They cannot pay market rents. If they could afford them, they would almost certainly be owner-occupiers. Therefore, they are faced with that dilemma of finding adequate accommodation at a rent they can afford.
Earlier, a Conservative Member spoke with pride about the number of council dwellings that have been sold. What about the number of council dwellings that have not been built? This year it is likely that the number of council dwellings completed in England and Wales will be no more than about 12,000. That means tremendous hardship and misery. That is why the Bill has no relevance to Britain's housing crisis; why the Bill is so offensive in all its clauses; why the Bill will bring no relief to the people to whom I have been referring; and why the Opposition have every justification for voting against it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I understand that the Front-Bench spokesmen will seek to

catch my eye at about 10 minutes past 9, so 28 minutes of debating time remains for Back Benchers. I hope that we shall have brief speeches.

Mr. Richard Holt: It is interesting that I should be selected by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak after the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He and I served on the London borough of Brent council from its inception in 1963–64. I have to go back to those days to find the start of the decline in the relationship between central and local government.
I am pleased to see that proportional committees will be established by the Bill. I am particularly in favour of that because, after the London borough of Brent elections in 1963, 31 Labour councillors and 29 Conservative councillors were elected. At the first inaugural meeting of the council, the hon. Member for Walsall, North was one of those who fervently supported the fact that all 10 aldermanic benches went to the Labour party, thus distorting the electorate's wish by packing the committees. It has taken the Government 25 years to catch on to that and to introduce legislation to ensure proportional representation on the committees.
That was the beginning of the slide into argument between central and local government. The political editor of the Local Government Chronicle recently said in an article about me that I had the widest, longest and broadest experience in local government of any hon. Member. As I have worked my way through different authorities I have seen the changes that have taken place. Over the past 25 years, Labour-controlled local authorities have sought to confront the Government and so the situation in which we now find ourselves has been inevitable.
I have criticised the Government because they are still tinkering with the problems. We are told that this will be the 50th Act of its kind. Until somebody recognises that the real problem is that Britain has too much local government, we shall always have debates and legislation that does no more than tinker with the problem.
Why is it necessary for an electorate to have a town council, a district or borough council and a county council which can all levy a rate? On top of that, there are the Government and the European Assembly. There are far too many tiers of local government. However, that does not apply throughout the country, because outer London boroughs do not have an upper tier or even a lower tier. For all its faults—this may be a political argument—Brent, one of the outer London boroughs, was at least a homogeneous unit without the conflicts that we now have as a result of so many local authorities.
The people of Skelton in my constituency are up in arms because the town council has increased the rate this year to 2p. That is a massive increase by any normal standards, but perfectly allowable under the Bill. The Government have failed to accept my advice on this and on previous occasions that there should be a limitation on the amount of money that town councils can raise through their precepts. The Government have done nothing. Just four years ago a Conservative Government abolished the limitation on the amount of money that parish and town councils can take.
That increase is on top of a projected rate of 299p in the pound for my constituents in Cleveland next year. It is said


that that is only a 6 per cent. increase, but it is 6 per cent. on a high base. It is 299p for the county and we have yet to hear what the district rate will be. Already we know one of the towns is charging 2p.
People talk about unemployment problems and the generation of employment in the north-east, but is it any wonder when the entrepreneurs and business men from Japan and elsewhere come to Britain and, before they manufacture a thing, they see the dead weight of the rate burden from three tiers of local authorities which they will have to bear? It is far too much.
What is all the money being spent on in Cleveland? That is a good question, because many people cannot find out. But they may be able to find out how much it cost to employ Vincent Hanna and his circus for a few lousy months last year while he was trying to put a gloss on the activities of the people involved in the Cleveland sex abuse case. What a shambles that was. There were two doctors, one out of his or her mind and the other nearly so, bringing havoc to the people of Cleveland, and the local authority trying to cover that up left, right and centre by spending money which we have not had the opportunity to debate in the House despite my requests on no fewer than 12 occasions. At the same time, Cleveland county council put up the rates for all those who live there.
I urge the Government to look again at the construction of local government.
After all, we now have the urban development corporations—creatures of this Government brought in because of the stagnation and waste of time of local authorities, which have failed miserably in the north-east of England to rise to the challenge of their responsibilities. Only now are we beginning to get some regeneration on Teesside. The last bulletin of the Teesside chamber of commerce talked of the boom times now ahead as a result of the Teesside development corporation, not as a result of the dead hand of the local authorities. So why do we need so many tiers of local government? Perhaps it is in order to find jobs for some of the Labour councillors and county councillors.
Let us look at the twinning there is in the Cleveland area. How can we justify a personnel officer on full pay employed by Middlesbrough council being seconded completely and fully, without any duties and responsibilities left, to work as a full-time county councillor for the Cleveland county council? To add salt to the wound, it has been necessary to recruit a replacement because of the work not being done by the full-time councillor as a consequence of that decision.
We have too many layers of local authority. We have leisure and social services being looked after by everybody. And what calibre of people are we bringing into local government as a consequence of all this? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has not read the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette of about two weeks ago, which reported that two county councillors had to be separated because they were physically fighting in the library of the town hall, and the police had to be brought in. I hesitate to use the word gentleman. One of those males was a member of the police committee and the other was a justice of the peace. How can we expect our young people to be given guidance and leadership by Cleveland county council when people of that sort are councillors? I look forward to the day when there may be some strictures by the central Government regarding whom we can and cannot have in local government representing the people.
We have someone on Cleveland county council who was elected to represent the town of Lofthouse in my constituency. He was the local vicar, and he scarpered; we are not quite sure with which lady. Consequently, the people of Lofthouse have been virtually without a county councillor for the past two years. I believe that he puts in a token attendance at county hall in order not to be disqualified under the current legislation. The Labour party would be terrified of having a by-election in that town because the Conservative party, which now controls the town council, would undoubtedly win the seat. Why is there not some legislation to ensure that those elected as councillors and county councillors do the job properly and are not employed elsewhere?
I am surprised and sorry that we do not have any limitations on the financial earnings of councillors and county councillors. Perhaps by doing away with twin tracking we shall do away with the concept of being an officer of more than one authority, but we shall not have done away with the duplication of people who are both councillors and county councillors, and in some cases town councillors.
Then there is the way in which allowances can be boosted. In Middlesbrough one does not have to be on a committee to obtain the allowance for any night. A councillor can go along to the committee room and if any councillor on his side is missing he can substitute for him and draw the allowance. He is there for two or three minutes and then he leaves. That is all that is necessary.
I drew to the attention of the House some three or four years ago the situation in Middlesbrough under the standing orders of the council, which enable any councillor to hold a ward surgery in his own home. It does not matter if nobody turns up; he can still claim the full allowance. He can sit at home with his slippers on, watching television, and claim the full allowance. That is the sort of abuse to which the Government have yet to address themselves. So I hope that this is not the last of the Bills that the Government will be bringing forward but is merely a step further along the road.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Fiction.

Mr. Holt: I will willingly give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to come in. Does he want to come in or not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. l am here to deal with that.

Mr. Holt: I appreciate that you are there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt I will willingly give way. If he does not, will he shut up?

Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman, instead of giving us a fictitious situation, give us a concrete example of a case in which abuse has occurred in Cleveland county council or any of the other councils that he has named? Let him name names.

Mr. Holt: I have already told the House that two county councillors were fighting. It is a matter of record. I have said that under standing orders one can claim for a surgery carried out in one's own home. That, too, is a matter of record. So I do not have to name names.
The politicisation of county councils occurred almost immediately after the war. Prior to 1950 almost every councillor in the country was an independent. After 1950 the Labour party started to fight as a party, and later on


the Conservatives caught up and commenced to do the same. The Labour party has sought whenever possible to get round the legislation of the day and to circumvent the activities of central Government. It is regrettable that local government is not what it was and that the people who are going into local government are not what they were. Certainly, that is true in many instances of the officers who serve in local government today. We shall not be able to turn the clock back. How can we when the Derbyshire county council appoints a man such as Race, who has no experience or knowledge whatsoever, as its chief officer? That is what we are up against.
There are innumerable instances of abuses by local government, particularly Cleveland county council, which is without a doubt among the most profligate in the country. Regrettably, I do not have time to go into details of all of them tonight, but there is one thing I would like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, because I believe that she may have the ear of another hon. Member.
Cleveland county council is for ever screaming and moaning that it has not enough money to mend the roads, the potholes and the pavements. Yet, according to this year's report of the council, it has underspent its allocation by a quarter of a million pounds. If it had any organisation whatsoever, if it was in any way capable, I should not have my constituents complaining to me about the roads, while the funds generously given by central Government are lying wasted and unspent. I would not mind if it were the first year, but I believe that it is the second or perhaps the third year running that the same situation has prevailed. So there is much that can still be done to make local government more efficient. Another example is the advertisement for a chief cleansing engineer placed by Cleveland county council in the most recent issue of the Sunday Times. That quarter-page advertisement must have cost 25 to 30 per cent. of the engineer's annual salary.
Local authorities under Labour control, and serving areas represented by Labour Members of Parliament, moan and groan about the Bill. I am moaning and groaning because it does not go far enough. It is time to review local government's duties, responsibilities and financing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much regret that my plea for very brief speeches has fallen on deaf ears.

Mr. John Battle: In the time available to me, I shall point, as other right hon. and hon. Members have done, to those parts of the Bill dealing with housing. When debating the Housing Act 1988, we warned that that landlords' charter would lead to market rents—meaning high rents. Even the Government's consultants are warning local authorities to be wary of the large-scale transfer of council estates
because tenants do not perceive it as an improving step.
The Government now have a big problem. The shift to private-sector landlords will not happen, unless this Bill results in pricing people out of council housing and into purchasing their own council property—with the benefit of a subsidy, which will be cheaper than paying rent—or into insecure private rented accommodation.
The Bill's effects on housing finance will mean higher rents. I invite the Minister to spell out the Government's figures of the rents that people will have to pay as a result of the changes that the Bill makes. Will he confirm or deny the claim made by the Secretary of State for the Environment two years ago, that market rents for council housing ought to be at least £35 per week? If so, many council tenants will be interested to know that. The ring-fencing proposals could lead to rent rises of about 20 per cent.
The public expenditure White Paper that the House debated last week showed that the number of houses built by local authorities will drop from 15,000 this financial year to 6,000 by 1991–92. The Economist commented on the White Paper:
Social housing will be hard to find and far more costly to rent. That is the message from the new statistics in the white paper's chapters devoted to the environment department.

I do not have time to go into as much detail as have other right hon. and hon. Members, but the proposals affecting housing benefit will mean that some tenants will, through their rents, be paying the housing benefit of other council tenants. Conservative Members suggest that there is nothing wrong with that arrangement, but why is it that only those receiving housing benefit are being denied a share of the national cake? Why are the Government not reconsidering the housing assistance that is given in the form of mortgage tax relief? It seems that tax reductions and relief are given only to the better off in our society, and that it will be the poor who are forced to rely on the local state—back to the traditions of parish relief. How will the people face up to the level of poll tax that their local authority will have to impose on them also, in order to assist the poor in their area?
I can, surprisingly, welcome one provision in the Bill, and about which I ask the Minister for more detail. I refer to clause 130 and to schedule 8(3), which contain a hint that powers to check up on houses in multiple occupancy will be included. It appears that local authority powers in respect of houses in multiple occupancy will be amended. The schedule's contents are minimal, but could provide an appropriate peg. I shall be interested to know whether the Government have any intention of writing into the Bill realistic and practical proposals for dealing with multiple occupancy housing. Six out of 10 of an estimated 334,000 houses in multiple occupancy are in a serious state of disrepair, and four out of five lack a satisfactory means of escape from fire. I invite the Government to expand further on their intentions in that regard.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) openly states his belief that, despite there being 50 local government Bills since 1979, there is still too much local government. I wonder how much he speaks for his right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that the Bill's intention is to put the final cap on local government.
In an interview in Today published on 25 February 1988, the Prime Minister presented her vision of Britain in the year 2000. She envisaged that it will herald a golden age for Britain, and a new Elizabethan age of enterprise and advance. She refers with admiration to the great days when wealthy merchants built libraries, art galleries, schools and civic buildings, and to the burghers who built and ran the large cities of Britain. Perhaps she sees the re-emergence of the business man or financier, who may chair the local health authority and the city's urban development


corporation, and serve as president of the chamber of commerce, as well as being a leading Tory in the community.
That person will hold the power that is currently held by local government. I imagine that in the year 2000 that person will arrange a dinner to which will be invited other business personalities, and on that occasion the tenders which will provide for what remains of the basic city services will be opened and divided up. That will happen once a year, and it will be the end of the road for local government.
Is that the reduction in the activities of local government that the Government want to achieve? We are bound to ask that question in view of some of the comments of Conservative Back Benchers. However benevolent those merchants and business men may be, they will be unelected and unaccountable locally.
I remind the House of what the Widdicombe committee said in chapter 3 of its report, entitled
The role and purpose of local government.
Widdicombe suggested that the threefold purpose was pluralism, participation and the need for a responsive local government. The report said:
The case for pluralism was again influential in the 19th century when modern local government and the popular franchise were introduced. For Lord Salisbury, whose 1886–92 administration created county councils…these two phenomena were of linked significance. Salisbury proposals for local government were based on a fear not of centralising monarchs but of the centralising tendencies of a popular franchise. In his view, the enfranchisement of the working class would make welfare politics the central electoral issue, and lead inexorably to the rise of a powerful administrative state. This could be avoided only by the creation of new local authorities whose value as counterweights would be realised `by diminishing the excessive and exaggerated powers' of central government.
Do the Government still agree with that basic principle of local government as set out by Lord Salisbury?
Widdicombe continued:
More recently precisely the same arguments, if less politically stated, are to he found in the Reports of Redcliffe-Maud. Wheatley and Layfield … eg … 'By providing a large number of points where decisions are taken by people of different political persuasion' … it acts as counterweight to the uniformity inherent in government decisions. It spreads political power.
Will the Minister explain how the Bill spreads political power? It centralises political power by diminishing, if not eliminating, political opposition. That is built into the measure. Are the Government taking seriously those remarks of Widdicombe in introducing the Bill? We need to be convinced that the Government are not going in the opposite direction. If we cannot be convinced on that score, then it seems that this, the 50th Bill on local government since 1979, will be read in the future as an epitaph for local government.

Mr. Clive Soley: This is a centralising Bill which undermines and demoralises local government. It is yet another step by the Government in destroying local democracy as we have known it in this country for so many years. The Government do not trust local electorates and, for that reason, they seek to emasculate local authority democracy. Councillors, both Tory and Labour, will resent the broad thrust of the Bill. The Government intend to restrict the right of officers to speak or write publicly on controversial issues, to canvass or to hold

office in a political party. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister tell us that we should think in terms of active citizenship, but the Bill means that we cannot he active citizens in the way that they want us to be.
One of the most telling interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was to the effect that many hon. Members, including one on the Government Front Bench—I can think of two—would not have found their way into this House in the way that they did if the Bill had been law. Nor would those two Ministers have been able to become councillors and do their job in local authorities elsewhere.
In an intervention the Minister said that the only objections that the Opposition could dig up about Tory councils related to Westminster, but he was fundamentally wrong in more than one respect. Our objections are based not merely on the amount paid to Mr. Brooke of Westminster council, but on the fact that he has been given a contract that binds him to silence—he has been bought with £1 million. The Minister knows that the document involved exists because my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has brought it to the attention of the House and of the public.
The Conservative party cannot lecture anyone on the behaviour of councillors, and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) of all people has no right to do so. He could start lecturing Members of Parliament about some of the activities that he described, but if we start to do that, do we not also undermine this place? Suppose that we accuse Members of Parliament of not coming here, of not doing their job, of losing their tempers from time to time—of fighting and waving the Mace above their heads, indeed, for is that not a right? Are we to follow that up by saying that Members of Parliament must not be allowed to serve in this place?

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: Perhaps I may take the argument a little further before the hon. Gentleman is so unwise as to intervene.
We are not talking only about Westminster council. Horsham council has the audacity to use an empty council house as property and office for the local Conservative party. Portsmouth councillors are stripped of their authority because they acted as estate agents dealing with planning and housing matters without the right to do so, and indeed gave preferential advantages to people which led to their being disciplined. Nottinghamshire county council is also Tory-controlled, as is Harrow council. A Harrow Member was worried about what was happening in his neighbouring authority, where a Conservative councillor accepts that he was paid a quarter of a million pounds for assisting a planning application by Sainsbury's—which was successful.
It does not stop there; it extends as far as Bradford, and beyond into central Government. Who would think that Bernard Ingham is not paid by the taxpayer, and is used in an entirely inappropriate manner? Who has ever believed that health authorities are not stacked by the Prime Minister with her supporters? Who believes that the Ministry of Defence does not have Conservative supporters put in place at public expense? Has anyone seen the new National Health Service video, paid for by the taxpayer? The video is supposed to be shown to staff in all the hospitals—at considerable public expense—and who is


the star of stage and screen who opens it? It is none other than the Prime Minister. That is the way in which the Government use taxpayers' money, yet some Conservative Members say that councils should not behave in a similar way.
What happened on the Housing Bill? Particularly nasty information has been put out by the Government and by Conservative councils, paid for by the taxpayer, which is known to be misleading and false and which has caused acute anxiety and distress to elderly people who do not want their homes to be transferred over their heads through a rigged voting system. This is the Government who try to tell people that councils are behaving badly, but if they are indeed behaving badly perhaps they are just following the Government's lead.

Mr. Holt: rose—

Mr. Soley: I do not want to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because by making a very long speech he managed to prevent hon. Members on both sides of the House who wanted to speak from doing so.
The difference between us and the Tory party is not that we think it a good idea to swap stories about one local authority versus another, good or bad, but that we believe in leaving it to the judgment of the electorate. Let the ballot box decide at local government elections. Let the people decide. The Government do not believe that. They believe that local people are not to be trusted to exercise their judgment and vote out councillors who behave badly, whether for fighting, financial mismanagement or whatever. The Government believe that that can be achieved through centralised control. That is the difference between our approach and that of the Government.
When we are asked to restrict councillors and officers, why not restrict them from participating in the private sector? Given that there will be more privatisation why do we not take a tougher line on local government officers who serve on, take over or set up private companies? What about dual interests there? In Rochester upon Medway, where there is a Conservative council, the entire housing staff are doing a management buy-out of all council housing in the area. Who is issuing the advice leaflets? It is the housing staff who are advising people about the circumstances of the deal and how it is to their advantage to accept it. Never mind whether the deal is to their advantage—the leaflet is not neutral but a clear attempt to influence their decision and it ought not to be allowed.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
I challenge the Minister to say categorically that no local authority disposing of its property should have the officers who are taking over the property advising people about the advantages of the transfer. That should be done by independent bodies.

Dame Peggy Fenner: The hon. Gentleman recently paid a visit to my constituency. I can tell him that the tenants in my constituency will have a ballot on the proposal. I can also tell him that since the management takeover of the local bus company there has been one complaint in two years, which is far less than when the service was run by the

National Bus Company. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to tell my constituents what to vote for. They have voted four times for a Conservative local authority and three times for a Conservative national Government.

Mr. Soley: I can tell the hon. Lady that I shall probably return to her constituency. I can also tell her that the tenants will vote against the proposal as 300 of them turned up at the meeting at which I spoke. They object to the way in which the council is ramming it down their throats with a blatantly misleading leaflet which refers to a contract that does not exist. There is no contract. The leaflet says that the contract will give tenants the same security that they had before, but there is no such contract anywhere. If the hon. Lady went to a solicitor and said, "I have been advised to sign this and to vote for it, but I have been told that the contract does not yet exist," would the solicitor advise her to sign? Of course not, but that is what the hon. Lady is advising her constituents to do. If they are so unwise as to vote for a Conservative council again—I suspect that they will not be tempted to do so next time—they will pay a high price in areas where the people have been cornered in the way that her council is trying to corner its tenants. I want a guarantee from the Minister that where council officers are involved in such deals the advice that is distributed is independent.
We do not have to turn to the Labour party's views on these issues. The last time that I used the Association of District Councils as an example, I got it into trouble with the Prime Minister's office. Officials were ringing up and saying, "Don't give all that stuff to the Labour party as they keep using it against us." To the credit of the Association of District Councils, it was more interested in local government than in the Tory party, although it is controlled by the Tory party.
My next quote comes not from the ADC but from another Conservative-controlled organisation, the London Boroughs Association. The word that crops up over and over again in the LBA's briefing document about the Bill is "restrictive". It continually refers to the restrictive implications of the Bill. Talking about the balance on committees, the association says that it is
concerned that as presently drafted independent members may not attend any meetings except full Council meetings.
It does not think that the matter is properly dealt with in the Bill.
On economic development, the document continues:
The Association is anxious that no undue restriction should be placed upon local authorities' new powers to participate in economic development and will be represented on a working party which is being set up by the Government to explore these issues.

On discretionary spending, the association says-this is a powerful little quote:
Moreover, the offset of money given to voluntary bodies will severely limit the ability of local authorities to support voluntary groups serving the needs of the local community".
So much for the Government's concern for the local sector.
The association says of credit approvals:
It is a matter of simple justice that an authority which generates capital receipts should have the use of them without incurring compensating reductions in its borrowing powers and this is vital to maintain the incentive for authorities to promote the Right to Buy and other disposals of stock.

On Clauses 56 to 62, the association says about companies in which local authorities have interests:
The Association is very concerned that, as drafted, the provisions will inhibit the ability of local authorities to


become involved in local initiatives and will restrict such companies by imposing inappropriate local authority financial procedures.

The way in which the Bill deals with housing issues—to which a number of hon. Members have referred—is catastrophic. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) was whining away about his constituency's growing housing problem. I have been saying for some time that the rural housing problem is becoming like that of the inner cities. Local people have not been able to buy or rent and are being driven out. In areas such as Taunton local people—sons and daughters who are in the economic work force—are having to take holidays lets in winter and then be made homeless in the summer because their homes are needed for holiday homes. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is happening in Taunton and in a whole swathe of places across southern Britain, yet he goes on backing the Government, blind to the fact that almost everything that they have done has made matters worse.
What have the Government done recently? The Minister has issued a couple of leaflets from the Department of the Environment saying that he will help rural housing associations. The Government talked initially of the housing associations having 600 new homes or flats throughout England, but housing associations hardly exist in some areas of rural England. Another Minister became worried—one could see the panic setting in—and put out a leaflet saying that house building had taken off better than ever, but did not mention the slump of the 1908s or the fact that next year is projected to be disastrous. Everyone knows why that is so—it is because of interest rate increases this year and last.
Private sector housing will not be able to make up the gaps in the public sector. If public sector housing is cut from 70,000 units in 1979 to about 15,000 next year, the private sector will be unable to make up the difference, especially if interest rates are then banged up as well. Of course, housing will get into trouble. It is a case of too little, too late. Let the London Boroughs Association say it again, because it says it so well. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is Tory."] It is a Tory authority, and I am sure that Conservative Members would agree with it if they could.
The LBA document says:
Clause 49 stipulates that a proportion of the local authority's capital receipts must be set aside for the redemption of debt"—
even if the authority is not in debt, apparently. A private company operating like that would go bankrupt after a few years because it could not invest. The Government would not impose that on a private company, but the Secretary of State is quite prepared to impose it on local authorities.
A good Conservative organisation, the London Boroughs Association—it, too, provides an abundance of good quotes—says of capital receipts:
In particular it is likely to curtail local authorities' capitalised repairs programmes and make it harder for them to bring empty sub-standard dwellings back into letting.
The Conservative party keeps going on about empty council houses, but the Audit Commission report says that the Government are culpable because they do not give local authorities enough money to deal with the problem. And the Conservative London Boroughs Association says precisely what I have just said—that it will not be able to bring back empty, sub-standard housing into use.
The association does not leave the matter there. It continues—this was the subject of my intervention in the

Secretary of State's opening speech—by saying that local authorities have amassed an estimated £8 billion in unspent receipts. When the right to buy was introduced in 1980, councils were assured by the Tory Government that they would be able to keep the receipts which accrued from sales, but a year later the promise was broken. The spending of receipts was restricted to 50 per cent., and the controls have become progressively tighter so that now only 20 per cent. can be used. 'The Government propose to increase it to 25 per cent., but that is not as generous as it may seem, because it is limited to a declining amount. However, we shall return to that in Committee.
The key quote here is the following:
The increased central direction of local authority spending is to be deplored. Local authorities should be permitted the freedom to decide their spending priorities and to use their own capital receipts for reinvestment in their stock.

I happen to disagree with the way in which most of the local councils represented in that document are running their affairs, particularly their lack of interest in housing as a whole, but we on this side defend their right to be local councillors, to stand in elections, to put their case and to win or lose. It is the Conservative party which does not believe that. That is the crucial point that many people in all political parties who seek to serve the community will remember.
Ring fencing will be disastrous for rents, and the Government persistently refuse to say what a fair rent is. Here we have perhaps the most interesting aspect of today's debate—the other shift of policy by the Secretary of State. There were shifts of policy in the news releases put out by the Department of the Environment on house building and rural housing, but the most significant shift came when the Secretary of State actually said for the first time that he did not think market rents were appropriate for councils.

Mr. Ridley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Soley: If the Secretary of State is saying that he is still going for market rents and that all councils are to pay market rents, he is saying that rents will go up exactly as my right hon. and hon. Friend have said.

Mr. Ridley: I have never said that council rents should go to market rent levels and have not said that today. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—I made it quite clear that they were not going to market rents.

Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State has made it very clear that in his view there must be market rents. If he wants to look at what he said, he should look at the White Paper of November 1987, which says that subsidising council tenants will push them into the dependency culture—and if he will not subsidise them, who will pay the rent? Why did he also put in the Bill that the rent assessment committee must take into account a market rent before setting a rent for the new assured tenancies? The Government have fallen into the trap of recognising—as, to be fair, the last Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) recognised—that their housing policy was on course for disaster because they could not tackle the difficult problem of housing finance, and they keep ducking it.
What happened? Let us talk about that. The Government have actually said that rents have been set too low. They picked out the GLC and said that. I had a


couple at a press conference in this House only a week ago—Mr. and Mrs. Green of Folkestone—who are now paying a rent of £52 per week out of joint pensions of £130 per week. Let hon. Members think about that—40 per cent. of one's net income going in rent. Forty per cent. of anyone's net income going in housing costs, whether for rent or sale, has to be a disaster. That is why in that case the wife said, "I feel like walking into the sea," and her husband said, "I suppose we shall end up in bed and breakfast." That is what I mean when I say that the Government are causing distress and anxiety to all the people. Yet the Government said that rents were too low.
The Government say that they intend to help people by means of housing benefit. I agree with the London Boroughs Association, which says:
If council rents are required to rise to market levels,"—
that shows that the Conservative party recognised that the Secretary of State wanted market levels—
it is essential that the Department of Social Security permits housing benefit to be paid at this level and makes available the necessary public expenditure to cover the cost.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wilfully fantasising. Housing benefit covers the rent, whatever it is, provided that the person qualifies by virtue of his income. We are not moving to housing market rents and we have no intention of doing that, so the hon. Gentleman can stop saying it.

Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman ought to have a few words with Conservative party members. He should say that to the London Boroughs Association, which says that council rents are required to rise to market levels. He should also change all the instructions that he has given and answer the following question. How does he intend to revive the private rented sector if he does not allow it to charge market rents? That has always been his central argument. He has always said that the private sector must be allowed to charge market rents.
The Government say that they must abolish the Rent Acts, that it will be easier to evict tenants and that landlords will obtain a greater turnover. If councils or housing associations charge significantly lower rents, an enormous number of people in the private sector will try to get into the public sector, but they will find that the public sector has been cut. There will then be ghettos. That is why the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton are in trouble. The problems of the city areas will apply in rural areas as well.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: No, I am afraid that I cannot give way. Time alone prevents me.
I am sure that the Government will want to deal with the problem and I must leave it to them. Unless the Government face up to the problem, they will be unable to solve it. The Secretary of State's muddle about whether he is in favour of market rents or whether he is against them will not and cannot be solved until he deals with the subject of housing finance.
The other problem that the Government have created is the one that they have visited on housing associations. In their panic to do something about the lack of supply of good, low-cost housing for rent or sale, they have decided

to expand the housing associations. They spent the first half of the 1980s clobbering them, but now they want to help them. The Government have told housing associations to take over council properties and to build more properties. The housing associations are now running into management problems which they did not face initially when they were local and small. The Government are now urging them to become large and national, which means that they are further away from the people whom they represent.
To whom will the hon. Member for Taunton and other Back Benchers go when they find that they cannot go to their local councillors and instead have to go to the headquarters of a housing association in the north of England because the housing association in their area has been taken over? Who will hon. Members write to then? At the moment they can write to their councillors and the tenants can kick out the councillors if they do not like the job that they are doing, but they will be unable to kick out a housing association with headquarters further afield. I have a great deal of time for housing associations, but the Government have undermined some of the basic assumptions on which the success of the housing association movement was built—not least, management and rents.
The iniquitous proposal that local tenants should subsidise other local tenants through housing benefit is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said earlier, wicked. Let us consider what would happen if the same were done with mortgages. What would happen if it were said that people in one area should subsidise the mortgages of other people in that area, instead of it being done on a national basis? Hon. Members can imagine the outcry. They are prepared to do that not with housing associations or with the private sector, but only with the council sector.
What will happen to the homeless? Under clause 128 councils are not required to keep a housing stock. I presume that they will all be able to do as Horsham does—pass all empty council houses over to the Conservative party for use as offices. Perhaps that is the aim. There is no real action here. We shall want to look at this aspect more closely in Committee. I hope that there will be some movement on it from the Minister because it was a report of his own Department on houses in multiple occupation which showed the seriousness of the problem in the private sector. There is no real movement there, and we need a lot more movement before anybody outside will believe that the Government are serious about their efforts in that respect.
What does Clause 132 do? Amazingly, it actually winds up the home purchase assistance scheme for the first-time buyers. The Conservative party wants to take help away from first-time buyers. If the Government are having so much trouble helping first-time buyers, why do they want to wind the scheme up now? Why do they not expand it and help those first-time buyers instead of clobbering them? There is no reason or justification for what they are doing.
The charges for local authority services are an indication of everything that is wrong with the Government's thinking. They do not believe in community. People will have to pay a charge to have their dustbins emptied, they will have to pay for their leisure and recreation, and they will have to pay for library services. They will have to pay for everything. If we go down that road, we go down the road that leads to real public squalor


and private affluence—the road that leads to ghettos. In undermining local democracy, the Government are creating a crisis in rural and urban areas of this country—a crisis that, sooner or later, people will feel so dramatically that they will hate the Government for the legislation being brought forward today.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): I thought that the reason for our having spent so much of this debate discussing the Widdicombe clauses was that the Labour party saw those as the most important clauses in the Bill, but I discovered during the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that the reason was that, when hon. Members opposite started to discuss the rest of the Bill, they could proceed only by fabrication and by misleading the House.The hon. Gentleman still failed to accept what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had said about market rents. He failed to understand that there is a distinction between a subsidised rent, where people are helped to meet the cost, and a market rent, which is considerably higher than that. He felt that we were taking away democracy when, in fact, what we are doing in this Bill, as part of our local government programme, is giving democracy back to local authorities—primarily, of course, through the community charge, which will provide accountability where accountability has not existed before.
But perhaps the saddest aspect of this debate is that we have failed to hear from the Opposition why they think it proper that people whose job in life is to give advice—independent advice—should also be able to play a party political role in some other council. For the world outside, the argument is obvious. I have never heard anyone suggest that it is not reasonable to make this distinction. Indeed, the Labour party is happy to have the distinction when it relates to civil servants. There has been no proposition that civil servants should be able to represent a constituency in Parliament and at the same time advise Ministers in a Department. Why not? It is for two good reasons. The first is that it is impossible for people to be independent on the one hand and party political on the other. The second is that it is unacceptable both to the people they advise and, indeed, to the people they represent.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I am not going to give way.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please. The Minister is not giving way.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman when I get to the point—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if the Minister does not give way, he must not persist.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Hammersmith has already taken my time after promising not to—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman well knows the rules. The Minister said that he would give way later, and no doubt he will.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and he knows that—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that.

Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not. On a point of order, M r. Speaker. I gave way seven or eight times during my speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) gave way. Why should the Minister get away with these allegations and not give way?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister concerned and up to any other hon. Member whether or not he gives way.

Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to give way—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The Minister has said that he will give way, and no doubt he will.

Mr. Cryer: He has no Christian humility.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in my time, and not when the hon. Gentleman seeks it. The reason is that the hon. Gentleman's colleague went over his time and did not give a fair share to this side of the House. That is why I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No, I am not giving way.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said in an article in The Sunday Times—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am well aware that this is a controversial Bill, but we have proceeded in good order so far. We must continue in that way.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the time when your deputies were in the Chair, they will know that hon. Members on both sides gave way to interventions. The Secretary of State gave way, as did my hon. Friends. Why is it that only the junior Minister will not give way?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no authority to cause a Minister to give way. It is up lo him.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman asked me to wait when I asked him to give way. I am asking the same courtesy of him.
The hon. Member for Brightside said in an article in The Sunday Times that there is a clear distinction between those in a job for many years playing an active part in


politics and a situation where a post is clearly created for an individual to help him or her pursue political activity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Blunkett: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when I come to him, and then I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Brightside.
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brightside. I should like the hon. Gentleman to do me the courtesy of answering the point. There is a clear distinction between these things, but that does not mean that both of them are not wrong. It seems to me that it is wrong to have a job in local government, which is created as a sinecure, in order to do a job as a council leader elsewhere, and that it is also wrong to have party political affiliations of a public kind which make it impossible to carry on one's job as—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish a sentence, I will give way, but when I finish the sentence. Although I said that I was asked by the hon. Gentleman to wait before he gave way to me, he has not given the same courtesy to me. The fact that the hon. Gentleman's speech was such a shambles is obviously the reason why he wishes to intervene.
The fact of the matter is—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall finish my sentence.
The fact of the matter is that it is not acceptable that a Socialist or Liberal ratepayer should have to go to an officer who is a known, public, elected Tory Member of the next-door council. I do not believe that that is acceptable for Tories, and it is similarly unacceptable for Socialists.

Dr. Cunningham: The hypocrisy of the Minister knows no bounds. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley)—who is now a Minister in the Department of the Environment—as a Conservative Member of Parliament was appointed a member of the Medical Research Council. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan)—who is now the Minister for Sport—as a Tory Member of Parliament was appointed a member of the Sports Council. What is the Minister really saying? Does he not accept that that is twin tracking in the public sector?

Mr. Gummer: All I am asking the hon. Gentleman to accept is a rather lighter regime on local government officers than there is on civil servants. The fact that he will not accept that lowers him in the House's sight and in the sight of ordinary and decent people. The truth is that we thought that these provisions would be attacked by hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). We knew that he would attack them, because he is the unacceptable face of the Socialist party. We did not expect hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Copeland to back this sort of job for the boys. We believed that there was still some honour left in the Labour party, but we have seen tonight that there is none. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Terry Fields: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it in order for the pipsqueak on the Government Front Bench to impugn my political credentials, which have nothing to do with this debate or this House, except when they concern my commitment to my constituents? The right hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: What the Minister said was not out of order. It was perfectly parliamentary.

Mr. Gummer: We had an interjection from the hon. Member for Broadgreen, when he told the House whatever he was mandated by his local Labour management committee to say. He suggested that it was all right that Mr. Hatton was paid by the neighbouring council of Knowsley. That was the burden of his remark. Evidently, it is all right that the London borough of Hackney—[Interruption.]

Mr. Fields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In defence of Back Benchers, you are always fair and just. In this particular instance, I would ask you to look at Hansard tomorrow to see what I actually said. I never mentioned Derek Hatton or Knowsley council. I talked about the Arthur Daleys among Conservative Members.

Mr. Speaker: Provided what is said in this Chamber is in order, I cannot intervene. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance later on to put his point of view.

Mr. Gummer: I would imagine that the hon. Member for Broadgreen would want me to refer to that, because otherwise what he said was partial and one-sided. He referred to one side of the argument without mentioning the fact that what he was proposing was, in fact, the justification of Mr. Hatton, both in his capacity as the leader of the Liverpoool city council and as someone paid by the neighbouring Knowsley council. That is what the hon. Gentleman put forward—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Blunkett: Derek Hatton was never the leader of the Liverpool city council—in my view, thank goodness. As the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, it would be unthinkable for people to go to a Conservative councillor who served as a senior official in a council—like the assistant director of the housing department in Sheffield who serves as a Conservative councillor in north-west Derbyshire. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel, however, that it was inappropriate for people to go to him as a Minister when he served as chairman of the Conservative party?

Mr. Gummer: I do not think that there has ever been any doubt that I am a Conservative, either when I was chairman of the Conservative party or now as a Minister. I believe that it is just as inappropriate for a Conservative councillor to serve as a paid administrator in a neighbouring council as it is for a Socialist. I make no distinction between the two.

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have three hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton outlined clearly the problems that arise in a borough when there is a change of party and, as a result, a large number of experienced and good officers feel that they have to leave. This is a serious matter and it is one that those of us who live in the London borough of Ealing take seriously.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about home improvement grants being paid at a level based on the original estimate, and not on the actual cost of work.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to attack my borough council of Knowsley and then not to give way—[Interruption.]—to the Member representing that council?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Acton asked a specific question and I shall give a specific answer—

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but if the Minister does not give way, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Gummer: An authority will be able to redetermine the amount of grant if the actual cost is lower than the estimated expense.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down now. This debate has been conducted in good order and that must continue for the next few minutes.

Mr. Gummer: The grant will be payable only on the furnishing of an acceptable receipt—

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Front. Bench spokesmen must give a lead.

Mr. Gummer: Grant will be payable only on the furnishment of an acceptable receipt conditional upon the work being completed to the satisfaction of the authority.

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the House always finds it extremely difficult when a junior Minister refuses to give way having made allegations about other hon. Members of the House. It is one thing for a Back-Bencher to get into difficulties with a Front-Bench spokesman, but another for

a Minister to make allegations and then not give way. If he gives way, the House will make progress. Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that the Chair has no authority to require a Minister, or a Back-Bencher for that matter, to give way. If the Minister is not prepared—

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. If the Minister does not give way, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it.

Mr. Soley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that we have noticed in the House, particularly of Ministers from the Department of the Environment, is that it is usually a sign of incompetence when Ministers do not give way.

Mr. Gummer: I would have given way, Mr. Speaker, had the hon. Member for Hammersmith not used up a good deal of my time. Because of that, I have been unable to make my speech. He made a number of serious allegations about my right hon. Friend, and he has not given me a chance to answer those allegations, but I intend to do so. The hon. Gentleman has only himself to blame for having given a shocking speech to the House and for not giving me enough time to reply.

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in one moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton asked about section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 and I shall be meeting members of the London Grants Committee to see whether we can do something about that.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked about teachers. There is nothing in the Bill to cover teachers, and the White Paper made it clear that the Government's proposals, as carried in the Bill, do not cover teachers and lecturers. No doubt the Committee will discuss this matter, but—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is no good saying, "Ah." It is impossible to have the Committee without discussing that matter. Therefore, all I am saying is that it is not in the Bill. The Government do not have any intention of putting it into the Bill, but no doubt it will be discussed in Committee.
I want to return to the remarks of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). He said the Bill was dangerous and that there was a strong attack on Widdicombe.

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall deal later with what the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said.
The hon. Member for City of Durham denied what the independent Widdicombe committee had suggested—that all local government officers who earned more than £13,500 a year ought to be excluded from political activities. The Government have not gone as far as that, but have said that they could be so excluded but ought to have a right of appeal. That is perfectly reasonable. It would be much happier for the hon. Member for Knowsley, North if on the occasion when the deputy leader of Liverpool city council was employed by


Knowsley he felt that he could have gone to an independent body to see whether that was reasonable. I give way to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, to see whether he agrees with that.

Mr. Howarth: 1 am grateful to the Minister for eventually giving way. Does he accept that the fact that Mr. Hatton's employment was eventually terminated by the borough of Knowsley rather militates against the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that it was up to the borough of Knowsley to do so, but I genuinely find it difficult to understand how one can defend the concept of, say, the assistant chief executive of Hackney being the former housing chairman of Lambeth council. How can one defend that, in a situation where somebody who did not happen to agree with the extremist policy that the executive held in Lambeth needs his advice in Hackney, whether or not as an opposition member in Hackney?

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No. I am not going to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. The hon. Gentleman has helped me so far by giving me as little time to speak as possible.
That means that anybody who lives in Hackney who does not happen to agree with the extremist policy of his assistant chief executive can have little confidence that he will get proper independent advice. Even if he did get that, would he be comfortable in asking for it? That is a serious matter.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for his congratulations and his kindness. When I went to Taunton Deane, even the opposition members of the local council were at least interested enough to listen, to talk and to discuss, which is more than the guilty consciences of the Opposition are willing to do this evening—[Interruption.] We shall be considering carefully the two points that the hon. Member raised. I hope to give him a better reply in other circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) asked about improvement grants for the disabled. We recently issued a consultation paper on the proposed means test, including its application to the disabled. We believe that, if the occupants have the resources to pay for or contribute to the work, it is right for them to do so, but we shall of course consider carefully the responses that we receive to the consultation paper before these matters are discussed in Committee.

Mr. Battle: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The most remarkable part of the debate was the speech by the hon. Member for Copeland, who suggested that the Government have changed their mind and their response to Widdicombe, which was somehow disgraceful. But we went out to consultation, and as a result of that we decided that Widdicombe was right and that the Government and their White Paper were not so right.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We discovered—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Gummer: We discovered that the business of twin tracking was very much wider—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: —and on a much greater scale than we had expected. When the hon. Gentleman was bowled—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Cunningham: That is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gummer: When the Member for Copeland was bowled middle stump by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) about Middlesbrough, he could not answer the fact, and thereafter did not give way lest he was beaten again. The hon. Gentleman was afraid to give way.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Copeland must resume his seat.

Mr. Gummer: He then went on to try to suggest that we intended to subsidise the community charge from the housing revenue account—a fictitious, wrong and unacceptable statement. The hon. Gentleman does not know the facts and that is why he is making a noise now. He knows that he lost, in an appalling opening speech.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Question put, That the Bill be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 203.

Division No. 92]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Atkinson, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butcher, John


Beggs, Roy
Butler, Chris


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon,W.
Carrington, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Churchill, Mr


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottom ley, Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)






Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
Lilley, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McCrindle, Robert


Day, Stephen
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Devlin, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Maclean, David


Dicks, Terry
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Dover, Den
Madel, David


Durant. Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
Malins, Humfrey


Eggar, Tim
Maples, John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Marland, Paul


Fallon, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maude, Hon Francis


Forman, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Moss, Malcolm


Grist, Ian
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Neale, Gerrard


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayward. Robert
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patnick, Irvine


Holt, Richard
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Tim


Irving, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert B (Hens W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, Sir William


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, John


Stokes, Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Summerson, Hugo
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woodcock, Mike


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thorne, Neil



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Tredinnick, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Cunningham, Dr John


Anderson, Donald
Darling, Alistair


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Douglas, Dick


Beckett, Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eadie, Alexander


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Fearn, Ronald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Flynn, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galloway, George


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clay, Bob
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gould, Bryan


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Coleman, Donald
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cousins, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Haynes, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis






Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Illsley, Eric
Robertson, George


Ingram, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey


Janner, Greville
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ruddock, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ron
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Macdonald, Calum A.
Steinberg, Gerry


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McTaggart, Bob
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wall, Pat


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wray, Jimmy


Morgan, Rhodri
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Nellist, Dave
Tellers for the Noes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


O'Brien, William
Mr. Frank Cook.


O'Neill, Martin

Question accordingly agreed to

Local Government and Housing Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government and Housing Bill, it is expedient to authorise

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required for the payment by the Secretary of State of grants, subsidies or contributions under the Act;
(b) any sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling any guarantees under the Act;
(c) any other expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and
(d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

(2) the payment of any sums received by the Secretary of State under the Act into the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Terry Fields: Having spent all day observing the ineptitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Local Government, the House is now asked to approve the money needed to finance the disgraceful legislation that it has just debated.
We do not view the Bill in isolation, but see it as part of a general attack on the working class and on the working people of our society. We see it also as an attack on the working wage, and on what the Prime Minister defines as Socialism—local authority housing, local authority education, the National Health Service, and the social services. The Prime Minister regards them all as elements of Socialism that must be attacked—and the ministerial lapdogs are prepared to go through the Lobbies and vote for legislation that serves that purpose. We shall oppose this legislation and certainly not agree to finance what the Government intend to do under it.
Although we may refer to the ineptitude of the Government, let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that the Secretary of State is a bumbling idiot. He is far from being that. He is astute, certainly on behalf of those whom he represents.
We recall the Ridley plan which was arranged in detail prior to the miners' strike. Every facet was examined and every possibility was taken into account, including precise details of coal stocks. That all resulted in mines being closed and privatised. This legislation and the money we are being asked to approve are part of the Government's salami tactics to undermine local democracy and attack the living standards of the British people.
We spoke earlier of the way in which 70,000 civil servants will be disfranchised—the Minister did not like me using that word—and not permitted to participate in our democratic processes, simply because of the arbitrary figure of £13,500 being written into the measure. When we questioned why the same provision was not being applied to other areas of society, including this House, the Secretary of State said that Members of Parliament were above reproach and criticism. Yet, as we know, Conservative Members receive vast sums for their directorships and consultancies. Contrast that with local officers earning £13,500 a year. Where is the equality in society?
Whatever Conservative Members say about politics on the rates and so on, there is no even-handedness by the Government. Their agents have been acting as officers of local authorities, including Labour-controlled ones,


putting a brake on the democratic processes by interfering with the ability of councils to carry out their mandates and manifestos. Those people will remain free to continue to impede the democratic processes.
We are being asked to approve money for the introduction of ring fencing. That is bound to increase rents for low-paid members of the community. There are great problems in places like Liverpool in paying housing benefit to the needy. Clearly, the poor will be paying to help the very poor in society. Presumably that is what the Government mean by shifting the burden.
Do the Government seriously expect somebody like me, coming from Liverpool, and particularly the Broadgreen part of it—Liverpool still has 23,000 people on the housing waiting list and no chance of accommodating them—to agree to this money measure?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Considering the council that has been in power in Liverpool for some years, it is not surprising that the city is in a devastated state.

Mr. Fields: The hon. Lady's ignorance is displayed by her attitude.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady worked there.

Mr. Fields: As in other aspects of her life, she is taking jobs from good Liverpool people.
Overcrowding, homelessness and strains on families are all matters which our Christian Minister for Local Government should be heeding. Indeed, the nature of his speech on Second Reading revealed the scandalous nature of the legislation.
Repairs to council house estates will be further delayed because of the poll tax. I have spoken to the Liverpool city treasurer about the implications of this legislation. Rather than placing a burden on ordinary working people, we have been using a process of capitalisation to reduce expenditure. Under the legislation the housing revenue account will be underfunded to the tune of £30 million, compounding the problem caused by the Government's cutbacks in rate support grant over the years. We used to assist council tenants through subsidised rents.
The Government and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) may criticise Liverpool city council, but we have a programme of urban regeneration under way. Despite what the Government and the district auditors have done—despite the removal of 47 councillors from office—we have built the best part of 5,000 council houses, with gardens back and front. We have built nurseries for our families and sports centres for our deprived youth. Yet tonight we are expected to vote for the money to allow the Government to attack inner-city councils such as ours, with disastrous consequences.
Today we are free to go out and put forward to the electorate a manifesto including a programme of house building, but when the Bill becomes law the Secretary of State will have the so-called discretion to intervene. It is all part of the Government's pathological hatred of Labour-controlled authorities. They are trying to undermine authorities such as Liverpool where the Tory party is only a rump, but the workers will understand that the Tory legislation for which we are being asked to provide money is responsible for cuts meaning that fewer

people will be able to get council houses and that repairs will not be carried out. As with the poll tax, it will mean even less support for the Government.
Instead of saying yes to the money, we shall be out campaigning all over the country. The Government have their heads in the sand. Already anti-poll tax unions are being set up to provoke resistance to their plans. Trade unions and other workers will campaign in a similar way against the selling off of council properties, housing action trusts, water privatisation and higher water rates.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fields: I have not time to allow any interventions. We got no change out of the hon. Gentleman earlier, and now he will get no change out of me.
We appeal to private as well as local authority tenants. We can go further. We have something going for us: the Labour party is in the process of a policy review. Those who, like myself, see the inadequacies of Government funding will demand that our party starts to consider what we shall do when we come to power. We shall demand a massive house building programme to serve those in need rather than the greed and avarice of those represented on the Conservative Benches.
We shall follow the example of Liverpool. Instead of cod schemes and phoney rates of pay, we shall want to give people decent jobs on trade union rates and to reduce the unemployment registers. We are proud of our record in Liverpool. Conservative Members may sneer, but we have built houses, put people to work and set up nurseries. This legislation will do nothing to help the workers.
We shall not say yes to this money, but we shall talk about money as part of our policy review. There will be agitation in the Labour party in favour of taking over the banks, insurance companies and finance houses at their expense. [Laughter.] Tory Members may laugh, but it is a laugh of embarrassment. They know that when Socialism takes off in this country their days will be numbered, as will those of the people whom they represent.
In saying no to the legislation and the money, we warn the Government, who have turned the screw on the workers and continue to do so, to watch out. The workers are getting up from their knees, and when they have done so the Government's days will be numbered.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The voice of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) is a minority in the House, but his views have much support :in the Labour party nationally. That is why the activists in the Labour party throughout the country who talk in the rhetoric of the class war of the 1930s have managed to make the Labour party unelectable. When Socialism was in action in Liverpool, the Labour-controlled council was sending redundancy notices by taxi cab to the work force of the Liverpool city council.
We also know that the city council ranks No. 1 in the country for the number of council properties standing empty. One house in 10 owned by the city council stands empty and uninhabitable because of a Left-wing, Hattonist, Trotskyite, Militant council, of which the hon. Member for Broadgreen is a representative, which votes for the destruction of Liverpool.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I had the humiliating experience of taking a delegation from the European Parliament regional affairs committee round some of that property in Liverpool when the Labour Government were in office. An Italian Socialist asked me, "What has lived in these houses—pigs?"

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Liverpool city council has made it its policy to make sure that its tenants live in serfdom, and to drive away from Liverpool any chance of industry and enterprise because of its absolute adherence to the trade unions and the far Left.
Liverpool city council has destroyed the core of Liverpool. It has destroyed jobs and housing and brought that noble city to the edge of bankruptcy. The hon. Member for Broadgreen lectures the House on how to run the country, but his views carry weight in the Labour party and we must pay attention to them because at the next general election the activists in the Labour party will be spouting such nonsense and the public will reject them for the fourth time.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is quite right that a considerable number of houses in Liverpool are in need of maintenance and repair. That is perfectly true, but is he aware that between 1973 and 1983 Liverpool city council was controlled not by the Labour party but by the Liberal party, with the assistance of the Tory party, or what was left of it in Liverpool? Instead of investing in houses that people could afford to rent, they decided to build houses for sale. They failed to use the rising rate support grant that was provided for the city of Liverpool throughout the 1974–79 Labour Government.

Mr. Bennett: Whatever the Liberal-controlled Liverpool city council did during those years, it did not take illegal actions. It did not have a deputy leader with his own army that went around intimidating other political parties as the Trotskyite Militant Liverpool city council did. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) would not attack the Liberals, because only yesterday, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) announced that the Labour party was willing to have pacts with the Liberals in the council elections.

Mr. Clive Soley: In the interests of accuracy, because the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has mentioned it twice, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made it clear that that was not correct and the Press Association issued an apology.

Mr. Terry Fields: The hon. Gentleman should apologise as well.

Mr. Bennett: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong as my remarks were based on what the Press Association said. It would not surprise us if there were pacts with the Liberal party because for the past four years county councils that have been run in alliance with the Liberal party have imposed massive rate rises and increases in staff. We know that between 1977 and 1979 the Labour and Liberal parties ran an alliance in the House—

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My constituency suffers from just such a council. Were it not raiding every conceivable reserve, the projected rate rise for next year would be 49 per cent.

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing us with yet another example of Liberal good housekeeping—suspending everything just before an election campaign is due.
I want to make two relatively non-controversial points about the Bill. I welcome the DOE's moves on low-cost rural housing, which are of particular interest in my constituency, in which there are considerable housing problems among the low paid. Secondly, I welcome the fact that improvement grants will in future be linked to income. One of the problems facing local authorities is that they often run out of such grants early in the year and cannot supply cash to people who have applied for it—regardless of whether they can afford to renovate their properties. Cash-linking improvement grants to people's incomes will enable us to target the money on the lower paid, who, as we know from survey after survey, tend to live in the worst sort of housing.
I believe that local government is vital to this country. I served for eight years on a London borough council—three of them as leader of the opposition—and for three years as a member of ILEA. Central Government cannot do everything; it relies on local government to provide local services and to be aware of local needs. But local government needs to remember that it was created by statute, and it is not co-equal with central Government. The problem with the GLC, South Yorkshire and some other local authorities around the country was that they thought they were co-equal and could challenge the Government on major matters of economic policy while running little Soviet states in the United Kingdom. Local government has a job to do and must remember to work in partnership with central Government; it must not pretend that it is central Government and try to take over their role.
I particularly welcome the campaign to end twin tracking which has been launched as a result of the Bill. It is scandalous that serving officers of one authority are often appointed by that authority—because they are Labour councillors—to sinecures, while serving as councillors in other authorities. They give advice to councillors in their capacity as officers in one authority, and then go out the same evening to their own authorities to take part in political decisions. No one can have any confidence in officers who are party political councillors in other boroughs—

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Bennett: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the Second Reading. He always turns up late at night to conduct his guerrilla campaign. Perhaps if he took more part in the day-to-day affairs of the House, and served on a few Standing Committees he might win a little more respect from the rest of us.
Examples of the sort of abuses I have described are legion. The leader of Brent council, Mr. Dorman Long, is employed by Lambeth council as a race relations officer. The chair of the travellers committee, Councillor Moleney, is employed as a travellers warden by next-door Ealing council. Councillor Esmie Sargeant, who works for Ealing's women's unit, chairs the housing committee in Brent—

Mr. Ian Gow: What is the function of the travellers committee?

Mr. Bennett: It is something to do with gipsies. Quite why they need a committee and chair—whatever that is—to look after them I do not know. It is certainly strange that the chairman of a committee to do with travellers can be warden of another similar committee in a neighbouring borough.
The chairman of the housing committee in Brent is a legal officer in Southwark. The erstwhile leader of Bradford city council, now leader of the opposition there, is employed as an anti-privatisation adviser by next-door Wakefield district council. The leader of Barnsley council worked for Sheffield council and the leader of Sheffield council worked for Barnsley. I give way to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful. The hon. Gentleman will of course know that I chaired a Select Committee today, and I do not think anybody in this House will deny that I play as full a part as any other Member, so his cheap, snide remarks are wasted.
Can I ask him if he thinks that, when people go to Sir Jeffrey Sterling for advice, they feel they are getting impartial advice, when he is an adviser to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and gets involved in transport issues? Is he also aware that the leader of the Tory-controlled Bradford council is or was actually employed by Conservative party central office? Does he think that people got impartial advice from the leader of the Tory opposition?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Bradford, South is not able to distinguish between people who are employed at taxpayers' expense on one authority while being councillors on another, and people who are employed as advisers to the Conservative party, usually at no cost, and who have no public position. Sir Jeffrey Sterling has no public position, and what he does with his spare time is surely his business.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South can talk about moonlighting; he is also a Member of the European Parliament, with two incomes. When he addressed us the other night he was saying how no Minister should be paid more than an ordinary Member of Parliament. When he was a Minister he got paid as a Minister. He is adopting different policies, twin tracking on principles, when he is in opposition. We take no lectures from the hon. Member when it comes to two incomes and doing two different jobs.
There are other examples of abuse. In Camden council, for instance, the director of social services, Patrick Kodikara, is also a member of Hackney social services committee. In Camden at one time 48 per cent. of the Labour councillors were working for other authorities. So we see the corruption that goes on.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Member was also not here for the Second Reading. If Labour Members are really interested in local government they can turn up at 4 o'clock and sit through the debate, instead of arriving at half past 10. I am not giving way.
The fact is that we are seeing corruption in local government; we are seeing the Labour party appointing its own councillors to well-paid jobs.

Mr. Paul Boateng: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member has given a whole list of persons appointed by one authority while being

councillors in another, and he went on to refer to the word "corruption". I think he ought to make it clear whether he is referring to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter of argument, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Bennett: I think that it is corrupt when the London borough of Hackney has on its shortlist two Lambeth Labour councillors for the job of deputy chief executive, neither of whom appears to have much in the way of academic qualifications for the particular job, and one of them gets the job. It seems to me that we have to end this twin tracking to ensure that councillors are elected as party politicians and do their job, but are not able at the same time to go to another Labour-controlled authority to get their mates to give them a well-paid job.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that sometimes this does not quite work out, and that occasionally county councils appoint somebody at a very senior level who has formerly been a Labour Member of Parliament, and this great love relationship actually has a very short life span, as happened in Derbyshire, when the county council appointed a Mr. Reg Race, and somehow within nine months he had gone. They sacked him or he resigned or something like that.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): How much did they pay him?

Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister asks how much he was paid. I have no idea. It is an official secret in Derbyshire. These love affairs do not always last the course. Derbyshire was one. The Government are really trying in the Bill to protect the Labour party from its own follies.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is very interesting, but surely it would be more appropriate for a Second Reading debate. We are supposed to be debating the money resolution. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is dealing with matters that go much wider than the money resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate on a money resolution is fairly wide, but I should like to hear a little more about money in this debate.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) has just been talking about the money that the ratepayers of Derbyshire had to pay out to this person, Reg Race. The public are not being told how much Derbyshire county council paid out for his very short sojourn as a council official. My hon. Friend has made it clear why his majority shot up at the last general election and why Derbyshire will become a Conservative county council in May of this year.
The money that is to be spent as a result of the Bill will be well spent on preventing local authorities from having one-sided, totally unbalanced committees. I welcome clause 13, which refers to the need for local authority committees to have a proper party political composition. When I was the leader of the opposition on the London borough of Lewisham we were excluded from the council's policy committee. That committee fixes the local authority rate each year. As elected councillors, 23 of us were not allowed to take part in the rate-fixing discussions. We


knew what our local authority rate was only when we saw it in a press release. That is not the way to treat opposition members of local authorities. I am glad, therefore, that clause 13 tackles that point.
We must ensure that councillors who run up massive rate and rent arrears are debarred from office. It is a scandal that the chairman of the Lambeth housing committee owes her authority £2,000 in rent and rates. Before any Opposition Member says that she may be hard up, I should point out that she collected £28,000 in council attendance allowances last year. Even so, she does not pay her rent and rates to her local authority. What can we say to the people of Lambeth when their elected councillors do not pay their rent and rates?

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I return to the point that I made earlier. What does this have to do with the money resolution?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave these matters to the Chair.

Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You distinctly heard me say money.

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate. The hon. Gentleman is getting very close to disputing the judgment of the Chair.

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling in any way whatsoever. I am asking you whether it is in order for an hon. Member to make personal attacks on the financial position of a member of a local authority in the way that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has just done. I think that it is out of order in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has said nothing so far that is out of order, but I know that he will recognise that other hon. Members wish to speak in this short debate.

Mr. Bennett: I have attempted to speak as quickly as I can because I want to be generous to the Opposition.
On the Order Paper today there is a motion standing in my name and the names of five of my hon. Friends concerning Coventry city council. It relates to two of my constituents in Pembrokeshire who owned a shop in Coventry. They were forced by Coventry city council, which is Labour controlled, to surrender their lease to the city council for £20,000, despite the fact that they had been offered £37,000 by a company to take over their shop. A few months later, Coventry city council, having forced my constituents to sell their lease for £20,000, sold the same lease to the same company for £51,000, having swindled my constituents out of £17,000.
Coventry city council has been found guilty twice by the ombudsman of maladministration. On both occasions it has ignored his reports. When I intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he said that publicity would deal with that. I regret that publicity does not get at the hard-nosed, Left-wing Labour councillors on the council who are defying the ombudsman. I urge the Minister to make sure that the Bill

contains powers to force local government officers and councils found guilty of maladministration to pay the constituents they have injured.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I should like to say why we should not be voting money to allow the Government to proceed to obliterate local government. In giving the reasons, I want to concentrate on this Bill's implications for racial equality. This aspect has not been mentioned in the House, and I should like some time to raise several points.
Before doing so may I comment on something that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said? He talked about twin tracking, about people getting jobs with one council and being members of another. Perhaps one good reason that a local authority has for employing councillors is that they are the best people for the job. [Laughter.] I willingly agree that it is an old-fashioned reason for appointing people, but it is a fact that people get jobs because they are the best-qualified.
In this case, one of the reasons for their being the best-qualified is precisely that they have experience in a particular section of local government that may not have been discussed or worked on before. I refer, of course, to areas such as race discrimination, sex discrimination, disability and so on, where new policies have to be made to ensure that disadvantaged people in those local authority areas get a fair return for the rates that they pay.
Hon. Members opposite talk about the golden days of local government. In those golden days, no concern was ever shown for black people, or for women, or for people with disabilities, or for any other disadvantaged group. One of the reasons those councillors get jobs in local government is that they have experience in precisely those areas, and these are the areas that are very important for large numbers of people.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the attitude displayed in the Bill is not supported by the Prime Minister's political activities? Since 1981 the Prime Minister, in her office alone, has spent over £1·3 million of taxpayers' money to pay the salaries of political advisers. What is good enough for the taxpayer, she says, is not good enough for the ratepayer. She is spending far and away more than any local authority ever contemplates spending.

Mr. Grant: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend.
I should like to deal with some issues of race, and I hope that the Minister will listen, because these issues have not been mentioned before. There are four particular clauses on which I want to touch—clause 1, which deals with political restrictions on officers and staff; clause 11, which deals with the voting rights of members of some committees; clause 25, which concerns the promotion of economic development; and clause 28, which amends the existing power to incur discretionary expenditure.
On clause 1, I think everyone should be heartened by the increase in the numbers of black and ethnic minority councillors over the last decade and by the beneficial effect that this has had by improving race relations. It is a fact, however, that the black and ethnic minority communities are still seriously under-represented in local government, and this clause will have a deterrent effect on black and ethnic minority participation in party political activity and on any public activity that could be construed as political.
I am further concerned by the disproportionate effect that this clause will have on black and ethnic minority officers who are already councillors on another authority. Given that local authorities are more likely to operate equal opportunities policies in employment, the number of black and ethnic minority councillors in local government employ is not surprising.
By pushing through the Bill, the Government will punish local government officers for getting jobs under equal opportunity policies on the one hand, and on the other they will punish local authorities which have brought in equal opportunities policies by forcing the black officers whom they have taken on to give up as councillors or to leave their jobs. In such a situation, why should we pay any money to the Government to carry on like that?
The catch-all nature of the definition of persons regarded as holding politically restricted posts causes further difficulties by setting a threshold for remuneration at £13,500 per annum. In effect, the Government are setting a cut-off point in salary equivalent to the grade of principal officer. Because of London weighting allowance, people in London who are not principal officers may be caught in the trap. I refer to dustmen or school caretakers, or people who work for direct labour organisations as carpenters. All those people could suddenly find themselves unable to run for council because they are earning more than £13,500 per annum. As a result of equal opportunities policies, a substantial number of balck and ethnic minority people are in those grades and they will be punished by the Government for getting those positions. In those circumstances, why should we give the Government money to carry out these policies?
It is uncertain whether the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State to restrict the political activity of local government officers will relate to party political activity or to public political activity. If it is public political activity, it will deprive bodies such as community relations councils of the voluntary services of local government officers, because community relations activity could be deemed to be public political activity. Indeed, in some areas Conservative councils deem that if a person is working in a voluntary capacity for a community relations council that person is somehow a demon or a political henchman who is there to upset the position of the council.
The impact of these clauses on the promotion of equality of opportunity and good race relations will be twofold. First, they could lead to local authorities being denied the opportunity to make the best appointments designed to help them fulfil their duties under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Secondly, they will deprive staff in the politically restricted group of the opportunity to influence local change, designed to improve relations between persons of different racial groups.
I understand that clause 1 may be against article 10(1) of the European convention on human rights, which says basically that no public authority should deny citizens their right to partake in political activity. If that is the case—our brief legal opinion is that it could be—we shall take all the necessary steps to protect the rights of ordinary people.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend consider the example of my sister, whom he knows, who is deputy leader of the London borough of Ealing and has recently taken up an appointment as a solicitor for the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham? If the Bill becomes law, she will have to choose. Many oft he officers mentioned by the

hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and others are in public service as councillors. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people will have to make an unfair choice?

Mr. Grant: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. His mention of his sister is particularly apposite as her position encompasses all the problems.

Mr. Terry Fields: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point about the breach of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. However, given their past record, what confidence can we have in the Government's attitude towards EEC legislation and especially rulings of the European Court of Human Rights? If we are appointed to the Standing Committee, how can we ensure that the legislation has sufficient safeguards for us to be able to raise matters in the European Court of Human Rights and receive proper results in the interests of our constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We appear to be straying from the money resolution. Would the hon. Gentleman relate his remarks to the money resolution?

Mr. Grant: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was in Europe myself, and I must say that people there are taking a dimmer view of the Government as time goes by.
On the question of voting rights of members of committees, in their response to the report of the Widdicombe committee of inquiry, the Government acknowledged the value of the contribution made by co-opted members to policy formulation. In paragraph 2·0 Cmnd. 433, the committee said of co-option:
It is a means of involving the community in local authority proceedings, especially those sections of the community (eg women, ethnic minorities, council tenants) that are under-represented among elected members.

The Commission for Racial Equality has recommended the use of co-options by local authorities as a means of discharging its functions under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, for the simple reason that it brings in outside expertise and experience which is not available—given the under-representation of black and ethnic minority communities among elected members—and as a means of providing access to the decision-making process. To remove the voting rights of co-optees would render the under-represented groups powerless in challenging ineffective and ill-informed policies. That is yet another reason why we should vote for this money resolution.
Clause 25 raises the question of economic development. The legislation aimed at giving local authorities a new specific power to promote economic development is welcomed. I am disappointed that black and ethnic minority business enterprises have not been given a high priority and that the consultative procedures introduced do not include any mention of the need to involve black and ethnic minority communities. That exclusion is surprising in the light of the Government's so-called commitment to inner-city enterprise, as exemplified by the Home Office-administered racial disadvantage fund, which is geared towards assisting black businesses.
I should like to mention the power to incur discretionary expenditure. The inner-city areas will clearly be the hardest hit by the proposed amendment on the basis for calculating the ceiling on section 137 expenditure. Black organisations in these inner-city areas will be especially affected because the majority of them are revenue projects.

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 59.

Division No. 93]
[10.58 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Amess, David
Hayes, Jerry


Amos, Alan
Hayward, Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Heddle, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Hind, Kenneth


Atkins, Robert
Hordern, Sir Peter


Atkinson, David
Howard, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Batiste, Spencer
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bellingham, Henry
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Benyon, W.
Hunter, Andrew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Irvine, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jack, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Boswell, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bottomley, Peter
Kilfedder, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bowis, John
Knapman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brazier, Julian
Latham, Michael


Bright, Graham
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Burns, Simon
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butcher, John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Butler, Chris
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carrington, Matthew
Lord, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
McCrindle, Robert


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Chapman, Sydney
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, David


Colvin, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Maligns, Humfrey


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Maples, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maude, Hon Francis


Couchman, James
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cran, James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gelling)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Monro, Sir Hector


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Day, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Devlin, Tim
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Den
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Norris, Steve


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patnick, Irvine


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gow, Ian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grist, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rattan, Keith


Hannam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Redwood, John





Riddick, Graham
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin
Wilkinson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





NOES


Alton, David
McLeish, Henry


Battle, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bradley, Keith
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Buckley, George J.
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Morgan, Rhodri


Canavan, Dennis
Mullin, Chris


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Nellist, Dave


Clelland, David
Parry, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Prescott, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Redmond, Martin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Reid, Dr John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ruddock, Joan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Galbraith, Sam
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hinchliffe, David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hood, Jimmy
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ingram, Adam
Wilson, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Worthington, Tony


Lewis, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Noes:


McAllion, John
Mr. Bob Cryer and


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Harry Barnes.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government and Housing Bill, it is expedient to authorise--

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required for the payment by the Secretary of State of grants, subsidies or contributions under the Act;
(b) any sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling any guarantees under the Act;
(c) any other expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and
(d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

(2) the payment of any sums received by the Secretary of State under the Act into the Consolidated Fund.

Farm and Conservation Grant

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move,
That the draft Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, and since they form a single package, I hope it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the Second motion:
That the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 128), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that that is agreeable to the House.

Mr. Ryder: It is only about a month since some of us, including the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) debated in Standing Committee the statutory instruments which closed our previous farm capital grant scheme, the agriculture improvement scheme, to new applicants.
At that time I explained that the new grant scheme, which had been announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November, was still subject to discussion in Brussels. I am glad to report that those consultations were successfully completed at the end of last month, thus enabling us to lay the new measures before Parliament for approval. I am also happy to confirm that we have been able to finalise our proposals in very much the form that my right hon. Friend the Minister was able to outline to the House last November.
The proposals are divided into two parts. Under the regulations, farmers will be able to submit investment plans covering all the items set out in the schedule. Under the scheme, they will be able to claim grant on a rather more restricted range of items but without the need to secure prior approval for their investments.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way before he has reached the substance of his speech. Is the House entitled to alter in any way the measures being put before it tonight? If so, would it not have been better for him to bring the regulations to the notice of the House before the negotiations were completed in Brussels, so that the House could express an opinion before they were agreed in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Ryder: The preliminary negotiations in Brussels have been completed. The final details have yet to be worked out. If any of my hon. Friends wish to raise any matters of substance this evening, I shall consider them later.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ryder: No, I want to get on, please.

Mr. Taylor: rose—

Madame Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister wants to make progress.

Mr. Ryder: Except in the case of some horticultural investments, the rates of grant available will be the same under both parts of the scheme.
The highest rates of grant will be for the installation and improvement of equipment designed to prevent pollution caused by farm operations. That will attract grant at 50 per cent. In the uplands, or less favoured areas as they have been designated, conservation work will also get grant of 50 per cent. of the total cost.

Mr. Ron Davies: Are the details of the scheme that the Minister is giving us subject to further amendment if his right hon. Friend concludes in his discussions with the EC that the existing details are unsatisfactory? Are those amendable figures or do they represent the scheme as it will be?

Mr. Ryder: They represent the scheme as it will be.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Ryder: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in due course.
Outside the less favoured areas, the rate will be 40 per cent. The items qualifying for grant will include hedges, traditional stone walls, shelter belts, trees for shading stock, stiles and footbridges and heather and bracken control. All those qualify for grant under the agriculture improvement scheme. To them we shall be adding grants for fencing out stock from heather moors and native woodlands to encourage natural regeneration and grants for repairs to traditional buildings.
In addition, we shall be continuing grants for grassland regeneration and reseeding, with associated fencing and liming and fertiliser. Drainage grants, however, will be confined to the replacement of existing systems. All these items will attract grant at 25 per cent. in the hills and 15 per cent. in the lowlands, and will be available only under an investment plan.
We shall be continuing to offer special assistance to the horticultural sector, with grants of 40 per cent. for replacement of heated glasshouses and 35 per cent. for heating systems, and the reinstatement of grants for orchard replanting again at 35 per cent. Slightly lower rates of grant will apply to work done outside an investment plan.
Perhaps I can now explain the objectives behind our new arrangements, and the considerations which have given rise to them. They follow from an internal review which my right hon. Friend set up last year together with the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Northern Ireland and for Scotland, and the Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That review was designed to examine how far we needed to adapt capital grants to take account of the very significant changes in agricultural policy which we have seen since 1985 both in the United Kingdom and in the European Economic Community.
In the Community we have taken some important steps towards controlling surpluses and the excessive expenditure they entailed. In the United Kingdom, the ALURE package of initiatives has opened up new opportunities for many farmers and underlined our concern to do more to enhance the farming environment. In particular, we wanted a capital grants scheme which would complement these new policies, target expenditure more effictively,


provide value for money and not discriminate against United Kingdom farmers. I believe that we have achieved this in the instrument before the House.
I am sure that the House will agree that in present circumstances it does not make very good sense for us to focus capital grants expenditure on the expansion of existing production capacity. Capital grants have played a very important part over the years in helping United Kingdom agriculture to achieve its current level of efficiency. But even the industry's own reaction to the agricultural improvement scheme suggests that farmers are now looking to different kinds of investment. Helped by the structure of grant rates under the AIS, there has been a very marked shift from spending on buildings, drainage and other production facilities towards conservation and pollution control work. Under the new scheme, we intend to promote that reorientation still further.
Concern to protect and enhance the beauty and wildlife variety of our countryside is growing all the time. Increasingly, too, the public look to the farmer as the guardian of the countryside. They recognise that the way he farms will materially affect the character of the landscape and the diversity of the flora and fauna within it. All of us have come to expect a certain standard of conservation management from the farming community. The land the farmers manage is not theirs only, but the heritage of the entire community.
What is less often recognised perhaps is the extra cost this can impose on the farmer. A hedge is generally much more attractive than a fence, but a fence can be put in much more cheaply and quickly. It is therefore entirely appropriate that in targeting our capital grant support we should recognise the additional expenditure which environmentally sympathetic management can require from farmers and assist them to achieve something which both they and the public at large want.
The new scheme gives very high priority to conservation. I want to make it clear, however, that this means conservation in its best sense. We are not grant-aiding things simply because they are attractive; we are also grant-aiding them because they are useful. One of the aims of the new scheme is to enable farmers to manage existing assets more profitably, as well as in ways that will enhance the attractions of our countryside.
That is the thinking behind the three new grants we are introducing for the regeneration of heather moors and woodlands and for the reinstatement of traditional buildings. A neglected or overgrazed woodland is not only a blot on the landscape but a lost opportunity for the farmer. By offering a grant for fencing out stock for a period, we hope to make it possible not only for natural regeneration to occur but for the wood in time to become much more useful as a shelter for stock.
Similarly, we shall grant-aid the regeneration of existing pasture and the renewal of existing drainage systems, to keep the land in good heart. But in line with our approach elsewhere, we shall not grant-aid improvement work to virgin land or moorland. Nor shall we pay grant for new drainage. Assisting the creation of new production capacity at a time when we are struggling—although with increasing success—to master the problems caused by

surplus production is clearly no longer appropriate. But helping farmers to manage well and sympathetically their existing farm assets is money well spent.
Another important priority under the new scheme deals with the problems of pollution from farm effluent. The pressure on farmers to clean up their act is acute, and rightly so. The farm and conservation grant scheme will offer grants of 50 per cent. in the lowlands for the installation and improvement of facilities for the storage, treatment and disposal of slurry and silage effluent. That is the highest level of grant ever offered in the lowlands. It is also the best rate of grant available anywhere in the Community.
That substantial grant increase, as well as extensions to grant coverage to include fixed disposal piping, safety fences, and more help for the intensive livestock sector, is clear evidence of the Government's commitment to dealing with the problems of pollution from farm operations. It also shows again our determination to target assistance where it can do most good, both for the farmer and for the community as a whole.
At the same time, I must make it clear that, with grants of that order available, there can be no excuse for any continuation of the high incidence of farm pollution that we have seen recently.
As to less favoured areas, right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with the grant schemes will have noticed from the schedules to the farm and conservation grant scheme 1989 that we are narrowing the differential between grant rates in the LFAs and those outside. That will mean small reductions in grant of 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. on most items. For effluent facilities and traditional buildings, grant rates will remain the same, at 50 per cent. and 35 per cent.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before the Minister proceeds to tell the House about all the Government's dramatic new grants for heather reclamation, and all the rest of it, will he clarify what appeared to be a misunderstanding in his answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)? The Minister told my hon. Friend that the proposals are subject to further review and amendment in discussions with the Commission. I can understand that, yet in answering the hon. Member for Caerphilly, the Minister gave the impression that the proposals before the House have been finalised.
Can the Minister explain why on earth the House is discussing the regulations and scheme tonight, when, under the 1987 structures plan, the Government are obliged to observe the measures now before the House, which have been approved by the Commission? It seems a total waste of time, both of right hon. and hon. Members and of the staff.

Mr. Ryder: The regulations cannot be amended, but I said that if any right hon. or hon. Members wish to make any objections or suggestions, I will be happy to consider them in the course of time. We are not looking to amend anything tonight.
Another aspect of the scheme that I draw to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members is the continuation of enhanced rates of grant for horticulture. Since 1983, we have offered that sector a good deal of special assistance, to help with modernisation to meet fierce—and not always fair—foreign competition. The


industry has responded well, despite setbacks that some parts of it suffered after the great storm in 1987, and a major reinvestment programme is in train.
The Government want to keep up the momentum, by continuing to offer grants for the replacement of heated glasshouses and for the installation of heating systems. From the end of November, when the current measures under the AIS expire, we shall offer grant of 40 per cent. on glasshouses and 35 per cent. on heating systems. We shall, from the start of the farm and conservation grant scheme, reintroduce grants for orchard replanting of 35 per cent. We have taken the opportunity to simplify and clarify the arrangements for the horticulture sector, as we have tried to do in a number of small but important ways throughout the new scheme.
I said at the outset that we were determined that our new scheme should complement our existing agricultural policies, and it does just that. It removes incentives to surplus production. At the same time, it encourages farmers to make better use of existing assets, and to do so in a way which enhances the attractiveness of the countryside for us all. In so doing, it offers good value for money.
It is also closely targeted on those sectors and types of investment which are now clear priorities. Chief among these is the need to reduce pollution. For a small dairy farmer in one of the large catchment areas in the south-west, the cost of installing and maintaining an efficient slurry containment system can make heavy inroads on his income. A Government grant of 50 per cent. towards this necessary expenditure is far more appropriate in present circumstances than a grant for a new building.
By targeting our assistance in this way on essential but costly investments, we are contributing far more effectively to the present and future financial soundness of the industry than some other member states which continue to grant-aid increases in capacity irrespective of whether there are markets for the resulting surpluses. That is why this reordering of our grant priorities has been warmly welcomed as responding closely to the current needs of Britain's farming industry.

Mr. Ron Davies: I wish at the outset to express to the Parliamentary Secretary our understanding of the difficulty in which he found himself in explaining to his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) the precise status of the instruments before the House. In our experience, the Parliamentary Secretary is always helpful and courteous in his presentation of measures and when he tells the House that he is prepared to be flexible, that is not so much an indication that he may have got the proposals wrong as a genuine willingness to listen to what we have to say.
When we last debated agriculture, we had to convey to the Parliamentary Secretary our best wishes to his right hon. Friend the Minister who that very day had been taken ill in Brussels when negotiating the latest agreement. I am pleased to note that the right hon. Gentleman has regained his health. I am not sure that he will recover so rapidly from the St. Valentine's day present—indeed, the birthday present—delivered to him today by the National Farmers Union. At its annual conference today the NFU presented the Minister with—

Mr. John Home Robertson: A brie?

Mr. Davies: No, not a brie—a unanimous vote of no confidence. Given the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is being run just now, it came as no surprise when that vote of no confidence was resoundingly passed.
My hon. Friends and I welcome the opportunity to debate the scheme and we welcome the instruments in broad terms because they show a Government commitment to transfer the emphasis on agricultural capital grants away from increasing production and towards improvement of the environment.
When the Minister announced the scheme in a written answer on 6 February, he said that he had consulted the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I understand that the instruments relate only to Great Britain. Will the scheme be extended subsequently to Northern Ireland or will there be a separate instrument relating to Northern Ireland?
The Government's recent expenditure plans reveal a substantial reduction in spending on agricultural grants. The Minister made some play about the reduction in expenditure from 1987 to the current year. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the expenditure White Paper of January of this year. Expenditure on major capital grants in 1983–84 totalled £217 million. The current year's estimated outturn will be £89 million and next year's £86 million. The forecast for 1990–91 is as low as £78 million. When the thrust of Government support was to increase production, they managed to find more than £200 million for capital grants, but now that the emphasis has moved towards more environmentally sensitive grants the amount has been reduced from £217 million to £78 million. That reflects poorly on a Government who claim that care for the environment is the centrepiece of their policy.
The Minister paid tribute to his debate with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in Standing Committee when the old scheme was closed. The haste with which it was closed suggests a desire by the Ministry to save money, as was revealed when the Minister was challenged in Committee about its sudden termination. He gave something away when he said that it had been impossible to give any warning of the scheme's closure because it
would have led to a rush of expenditure for which we have no provision."—[Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., 18 January 1989; c. 4.]
Unfortunately that was at the expense of farmers who had prepared improvement plans with considerable effort and at considerable expense and were about to submit their schemes to the Ministry for approval. Would it not have been possible to allow farmers in such circumstances to undertake the works that they had planned—at their own risk—while awaiting the Ministry's announcement about the level of grant that they would attract? A commitment could have been given that such grant would be paid retrospectively, and delays to farmers and contractors at what is usually the busiest time of year for such works could have been avoided.
The transfer of capital assistance from measures which increase production to those that enhance the environment is certainly in the spirit of the times, and is—to say the least—considerably overdue. We particularly endorse the increase in grant payable on the planting of hedgerows and shelter belts in lowland areas from 30 to 40 per cent., and the grants for the restoration of vernacular buildings are also welcome. Can we expect the new-found enthusiasm


for hedgerows to extend to support for the Hedgerows Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)? There seems little point in giving financial support to the development of hedgerows if the Government are not prepared to take action to support their protection once they have been established.
We also welcome the changes in respect of heather burning and the enclosure of woodland and moorland. These measures themselves will increase the value of such areas as wildlife habitats and will help the conservation of wildlife as well as assisting in the better use of those areas for agricultural production. We are also pleased at the increased grant available for bracken control. Bracken is a major threat to agricultural land, and as it is increasing at a rate of 5 per cent. per year it represents a significant loss of such land.
I challenge the Minister, however, on his suggestion that enclosure of woodlands would be a major step forward. I think that there will be very little take-up. There will be precious little incentive for farmers in either uplands or lowlands merely to enclose existing woodland. The effect of the measure will be to reduce the amount of land available for grazing, and it certainly will not ensure any profitable crop from the proceeds of forestry, at least within the lifetime of the farmer or his immediate family.
I suggest a course of action that we have pressed on the Minister within the last 12 months—to look again at the provisions of the farm woodland scheme. If he is now providing grant to allow the enclosure of existing farm woodlands, is it not now appropriate to introduce amendments to the scheme so that annual payments available under it will be made available to farmers who enclose existing woodland? Otherwise there will be no financial benefit whatever. Indeed, it will be a financial disbenefit to farmers in disadvantaged areas in the uplands or the lowlands to enclose existing woodlands. We pressed the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister for Local Government, about that in Committee. At the time he said that he was not opposed in principle to such a move but thought that it would be precipitate. To show how strongly we felt, we divided the Committee on the issue and the Government felt sufficiently strongly to defeat an amendment which would have given effect to such payments.
Now that the Minister has accepted the need to provide fencing for existing woodlands, will he consider modifying the farm woodland scheme to allow the payment of annual sums to farmers who follow that course of action? Without such a payment, I suspect that the measure will come to nothing.
Having welcomed the general shift towards conservation, we have to condemn unreservedly the telescoping of differential rates between favoured and less favoured areas.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is rapidly moving away from a point which I had hoped that he would expand, and I invite him to do so. With reference to the grant for repairing and reinstating traditional agricultural buildings, will he explain further, so that we understand his argument fully, whether he is satisfied with the proposals in the schemes?

Mr. Davies: I shall come to that in a moment. I have been dealing with the farm woodland scheme and I shall return to the question of vernacular buildings later. I suspect that I know the point which concerns the hon. Gentleman and I hope to demonstrate where we stand, although he may not be happy with the position that we have adopted.
Turning to the diminution of differentials between favoured areas and less favoured areas, the reduction in the grants payable on hedgerows and walls, slurry handling facilities and shelter belts in the less favoured areas from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. is regrettable, particularly as it accompanies increases in the grants and grant ceilings applicable to effluent and waste disposal and poultry manure stores which will be a charter for the intensification of lowland livestock production—an issue which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Martyn Jones: I am particularly concerned because that part of the scheme means that the incomes of farmers in less favoured areas and upland areas generally will be much less. Money will be transferred from less favoured areas to more favoured areas, which is the reverse of what is intended by these measures.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. The provision is socially unjust because it represents a transfer of Government funding from low-income farmers in less favoured areas to the high-income farmers in more favoured areas. If the Minister is not concerned about that social injustice, does he recognise that in general the less favoured areas have the most sensitive environments and care must be taken to protect the environment? I suspect that the diminution of grant will lead to the degradation of the environment in less favoured areas without corresponding benefit in the lowlands.

Mr. Ryder: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He rightly mentioned the fact that we have increased the grants for conservation of hedges, particularly in lowland areas; the worst ravages to hedgerows in Britain have been carried out in lowland areas, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) probably knows better than any of us. Precisely because of that, we have altered the grant scheme so that more money can be spent on lowland areas, particularly on hedgerows.

Mr. Davies: At least the Minister understands why we are concerned. We acknowledge and accept that more money is being spent in the lowland areas because of the problem of hedgerow destruction. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West, who represents almost exclusively a less favoured area, raised the particular point that that transfer of resources is at the expense of the uplands. Surely if additional expenditure is to be given for the rejuvenation of hedgerows in the lowlands, that should not be done at the expense of a sensitive environment.
If, as the Minister said, the aim is to reduce the incidence of water course pollution by agricultural slurry, why do not the Government enforce the regulations which already exist, and increase the penalties, rather than handing out more money to intensive producers, to the detriment of farmers in less favoured areas? There was an example of this in my constituency last week. A small industrial concern had been guilty of polluting a river with


slurry in the summer of last year. That resulted in the devastation of four or five miles of the river Rhymney and the loss of about 2,800 game and course fish. The firm was taken to court, fined £1,000, and made to pay more than £1,000 costs. That was derisory, given the damage done to the environment and the financial burden imposed on the water authority and the various angling clubs which had to restock the river.
If the Minister wants to protect the environment, why does he not agree to give farmers the additional grants to tackle slurry pollution of water courses but also ensure that the penalties are severe enough to inspire adequate take-up and deal properly with the problem of slurry pollution? If the Conservative party is, as it maintains, the party of law and order, why does it not enforce that law and order in the context of protecting the environment? Why is there not a more rigid application of environmental standards?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The penalties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman sounded wholly inadequate, but I should be interested to know what maximum penalty was available to the court.

Mr. Davies: That was the subject of some discussion between the research department of the Library and myself before this debate, so I can answer with some authority. The provisions were laid down in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which determined that grade 5 penalties would apply. Those penalties were last confirmed by order pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 1982, which fixed the maximum penalty at £2,000. In the case that I mentioned, I could see no extenuating circumstances which might have led to the 50 per cent. reduction in the fine handed down. Nevertheless, the maximum would have been only £2,000, which is still negligible. Now that the Government have taken the first financial step to ensuring that there is no need for the pollution of water courses by slurry or farm effluent, they must rigorously apply the control of pollution regulations.
Next, there is the abolition of the 35 per cent. feed rule. The old regulations required that any applicant for assistance under one of these schemes had to provide 35 per cent. of his fodder from his own holding. That requirement is being abolished. That may encourage new entrants to farming—particularly people who start with small livestock units—but it will also encourage more intensification. Will the Government commit themselves to tackling the worst sort of intensive units, such as the beef lot owned by Frans Buitelaar Farms Limited? That unit is situated in an area of outstanding beauty in Lincolnshire and recently excited a great deal of press comment because of its pollution of the water table and defiance of local planning regulations.
I should like to quote briefly from an article in Adscene of January-February 1989, the current issue. It describes that feed lot in Lincolnshire. I am sure that hon. Members who follow these matters will be aware of the case. Adscene describes what was seen:
Each feedlot contains around 100 cull cows, bought in from all over the country. In the lots they are fed a sloppy mash mix made from waste vegetable matter, poultry manure, spent brewers grains etc. and in this way they put on a little extra flesh before slaughter in Mr. Buitelaar's nearby slaughterhouse. The lots are surrounded by earth banks five metres high ‖
At the end of September Anglian Water Authority were successful in their case against Frans Buitelaar Farms Ltd.

The latter were fined £1,000 with £700 costs for allowing effluent 15 times the strength of raw domestic sewage to run into tributaries of the Salmony Beck.
That is, I believe, the consequence of the abolition of the 35 per cent. feed rule, and we really must press the Government to ensure by administrative means that the abolition of that 35 per cent. feed rule will not lead to an increase in the number of intensive units and will not lead to the sort of abuses of the environment that we have seen in that particular instance.
Producers in the less-favoured areas will suffer as a direct result of these changes—most directly by the reduction in the levels of grant for working the LFAs themselves. If, as the Government claim, the level of expenditure is to remain the same under the new scheme as under the old, how can the decrease in rates in the LFAs and the increase in rates elsewhere result in anything other than a decrease in the amount of grant aid to the LFAs themselves? It cannot, so we must take these changes a s a signal of declining support for agriculture in the marginal areas.
At a time of particular debate about the future of the uplands and the balance of support between the prosperous south and east and the more marginal areas of the north and west, it is a matter of real concern to us on these issues, which are not usually the subject of disagreement between us, that the Government are now signalling that they are withdrawing support from the extensive regimes in the marginal uplands and are prepared to give increasing support to the intensive regimes in the intensively farmed lowlands.
The scheme will also impact on the marginal areas in another way—through the price mechanism, the importance of which the Government never tire of reminding us. If capital grants to intensive livestock producers are increased, their costs of production will decline. This will increase the competition facing upland livestock rearers, which will drive down the prices that they receive. So livestock producers in marginal areas face the prospect of reduced capital grants and declining incomes. That is a development that we must condemn.
I ask the Minister to monitor very closely the take-up of the new grants in vernacular buildings—a point that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) raised in his intervention to me. As I have already said, we welcome the principle of restoration using traditional materials, but we fear that the level of grant proposed will nowhere near cover the increased costs of such building methods, and I am conscious of the fact that pressure in areas such as those that the hon. Gentleman represents are particularly acute. If this turns out to be the case and those grant levels are too low, will the Minister undertake to review the situation?
While I can understand the Government's desire to limit this grant to farmers who derive most of their income from farming so as to avoid financing barn conversions, for example, by yuppy or nouveau riche landowners, if their intention is the maintenance of our rural heritage I fear that this exclusion will limit still further its efficacy. The Government must therefore monitor the take-up very carefully to ensure that not only have they got inclusions rightly balanced with exclusions but that the grant limits are set at an appropriate level.
It is not our intention to divide the House this evening because we are broadly in sympathy with the spirit of what the Government have introduced. I hope that I have been


able to show, however, that although we accept it as a small step in the right direction we have considerable reservations about the practical application of these schemes, particularly on the uplands, particularly the question of woodland management, and particularly the incentive that it will give to the development and encouragement of intensive agricultural systems. That is something about which we have grave reservations. I hope that, as the Minister suggested in his opening speech, there will be amendments, improvements and modifications to the scheme in the not-too-distant future.

Sir Charles Morrison: I go further than the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I am not broadly in favour of the scheme; I am strongly in favour of it. I congratulate the Minister and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on introducing it.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to his doubts about the value of enclosing woodlands by fencing to protect them from livestock. He believes that the grant will not be taken up unless an adjustment is made to the farm woodland scheme. I am not averse to favourable adjustments being made to the farm woodland scheme, but I do not think that it is necessary here. The enclosure of areas of grazed woodland can be of considerable benefit. The fencing of woodland can result in a large amount of natural regeneration. Furthermore, the development of undergrowth can be of great value to wildlife. Enclosure that results in totally bare woodlands becoming much more alive areas can be of considerable benefit. Woodlands will benefit from the grant.

Mr. Ron Davies: I accept that there will be considerable environmental improvement and that there may be other benefits, such as shelter for wildlife and natural regeneration that may lead to a timber crop in 20 to 50 years' time. My doubt is that there will be no economic incentive for the farmer for fence off areas of woodland. There will be no cash return, unless the sporting rights can be let. The amount of land that is available for grazing will be diminished. Unless provision is made to compensate the farmer for the loss of income from that land, he will not fence off his woodland.

Sir Charles Morrison: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I agree with him that there will be no cash return, although I do not believe that the loss to the farmer will be very great. However, there will be an ultmate return to the farmer, in the sense that by fencing off his woodland he will improve the capital value of his land. I accept, nevertheless, that that is a long-term matter.
I note that the regulations are introduced under sections 28 and 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970. I welcome the emphasis in the schedule on the provision, replacement or improvement of hedges and shelter belts and on burning heather and bracken control. Bracken control will be of enormous benefit to the upland areas. Over the years more and more land has been taken over by bracken. The spraying and control of bracken will be of benefit to livestock, particularly sheep, and also to wildlife. The enhanced grants for bracken control are very much to be welcomed.
I want to refer in particular to paragraph 4 of schedule 1 which relates to the
enclosure of areas of heather moorland or heathland with fencing protecting the areas from livestock.
Again, in principle, I welcome very strongly the introduction of the grant for that purpose. There is no doubt that fencing on heather moorland will be of very considerable benefit. It will not so much protect areas from livestock all the time but will enable such areas to be rested from grazing by livestock for part of the time. In fact, there is no reason why a reasonable sheep stock should not graze heather moorland from mid-May to mid-October or perhaps a little earlier, depending on the part of the country. During that time, to a very considerable extent, the sheep live on the grasses that are growing among the heather. The damage done to the heather is done during the winter months, and it is very important, if possible, to remove the sheep or at least reduce their numbers very considerably during the winter months when the damage is done to heather.
Equally, in upland areas of Scotland—of course, the regulations cover Scotland and Wales—fencing can rest heather areas from excessive grazing by red deer. So, in general terms, I welcome that aspect of the order.
However, I have no doubt that, in drawing up the regulation my hon. Friend will have taken account of the 1970 Act and of section 17(1) of the Agriculture Act 1986. Perhaps the House will bear with me for a moment while I remind hon. Members of what that subsection says:
In discharging any functions connected with agriculture in relation to any land the Minister shall, so far as is consistent with the proper and efficient discharge of those functions, have regard to and endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between the following considerations—

(a) the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry;
(b) the economic and social interests of rural areas;
(c) the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaeological interest there; and
(d) the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by the public."

I was glad also to hear my hon. Friend refer to the need to enhance the beauty and wildlife variety of the countryside. I want to make a point about fauna in the 1986 Act and wildlife variety. It may well be covered by item 10 in schedule 1 to the regulations, but according to research that has been undertaken by the Game Conservancy in North Yorkshire 11 per cent. of the winter kill of the one bird that is unique to Great Britain—the red grouse—stems from birds flying into fences. That is in an area where fencing is decidedly limited, but the situation in the research areas of the Game Conservancy in Scotland is infinitely worse. The proportion of winter deaths in Scotland stemming from fencing is 26 per cent. That means that slightly more than a quarter of winter deaths in Scotland stem from birds flying into fences.
There is a solution to this: the attachment of reflective metal plates to fencing. I suspect that many hon. Gentlemen will have seen balls attached to electricity power lines. I do not know what they are called, but they look like balls. Their purpose is to enable the power lines to be seen by birds. The same is true of old telephone lines, to which corks are attached. There must be similar provision for the fencing of heather moorland if there is not to be a high death rate amongst red grouse, which is


not only a bird of considerable national interest but is unique to this country. It is also of great economic importance to the upland areas of the United Kingdom.
Will the cost of attaching reflective metal plates to fencing be covered by item 10 in schedule 1 which refers to
Any work, facility or transaction … incidental to the carrying out of any work, facility or transaction specified in any of paragraphs 1 to 9 above"?
I hope that my hon. Friend can tell me that the cost of the plates or similar additions to fencing for the same purpose will be covered. There should be protection not only for red grouse but for other moorland birds that fly close to the ground and which can be carried away in a full gale such as there has been in the last few days. The cost must be covered if my hon. Friend is to live up to his desire to enhance the beauty and wildlife of the countryside and to the commitment in section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me a positive reply.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Roger Livsey.

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor): Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that in this place I am either Roger or Doctor—

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has film star good looks.

Mr. Livsey: —Doctor coming from "Treasure Island" and Roger coming from films of old.
I welcome the order concerned with the farm and conservation grant scheme 1989. It shows progress in Government policy. However, there are important points which affect the rural economy. When capital grant priorities pointed towards increased production, there was a pay-off in increased production and an improvement in farm incomes as a result. The change to farm pollution control and conservation is desirable, but unfortunately it will not have the same consequences for farm incomes. That is worrying from the point of view of keeping the rural economy and farms going, in particular in the less favoured areas.
It is against that background that the National Farmers Union has censured the Minister of Agriculture. Concurrent with these trends have emerged the lowest farm incomes in real terms since the second world war. Understandably, farmers are disturbed. There has been a great loss of capital grants which were oriented towards increased production. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) pointed out that there has been a drop from £217 million to £78 million. That is an awful lot of money to take out of the rural economy. We must remember that many of the upland areas are remote and that incomes on the farms are low. In addition, the earnings of people in the rural economies are extremely low. Many upland areas of Britain have the lowest disposable incomes in the whole country. That concerns us all.
Among the farmers in those areas are small farmers who are under intense pressure from the Government because of high interest rates. We all know that those high interest rates have been imposed by the Chancellor, because of the credit card spending spree in the high street. However, that bears no relationship to what is happening in rural Britain and the ability of farmers to achieve a realistic net income in order to stay afloat.

There are tremendous problems for farmers in attempting to stay afloat. About four years ago, my area of Powys was obtaining about £30 million-worth of capital grants. Of course, it is now receiving only a shadow of that sum. Money has been taken away not only from the farming community, but also from the contractors and other support groups in the industry. That together with the loss, for example, of the tax benefits for purchasing new machinery—where there was 100 per cent. dispensation at one time—has affected machinery dealers too. We must be careful how we approach this subject. Obviously, pollution control and conservation are important, but they bring with them problems. The principles, however, are certainly to be welcomed. Perhaps part of the problem is that there is not enough money on the table.
The support of native woodlands, heather moorlands and traditional buildings must be welcomed. However, the loss of grants for new farm buildings—which enabled increased production and, therefore, increased income on farms—needs to be considered further. Many of those buildings enabled farmers to increase their incomes. We must not forget that costs—especially fixed costs—are continually rising. The missing part of the jigsaw in the Government's present proposals must be the fact that the previous grants enabled higher incomes to be achieved.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that the reduction in grant aid from 60 to 50 per cent. for certain items in less favoured areas is regrettable. By their very description, those areas have far fewer options and therefore, need as much support as possible in order for the farms to remain viable.
I understand that there will be no more assistance for new drainage. I trust, however, that there will be some assistance for the maintenance of existing drainage, because many of the areas to which I have referred are high rainfall areas and, if the drains are not maintained, there will be a rapid reversion and the land will be less able to produce properly.
I was pleased to hear about the grants for orchard replanting and horticulture, and that there is some support for energy in those areas. As in other parts of the European Community, our horticulture has suffered grievously because of lack of support. Support, therefore, is something to be welcomed.
The problem is that the return on investment in farms at present is not that good, and, of course, that has not been helped by the interest rate increases. I believe that it should be possible to design environmentally friendly systems of farming which are also profitable. The Government, however, have cut research and development by £30 million, when, in fact, it should be expanded to cover different farming systems—ones which are profitable and will maintain the people on the land, but will also maintain the conservation of the countryside.
I particularly welcome the support for hedgerows, as I come from an area where they are cherished. The hedges in my area with their crop and pleach style are the finest in the land. They are superbly maintained and I am pleased that support will be given to them.
I am disappointed about the support for liming, which is put at 25 per cent. That is nothing like the support given when the lime subsidy was in operation. Liming not only increases productivity in an environmentally friendly manner, but assists in creating a buffer against the tremendous problems of acidity that exist in upland areas.


The Government should be encouraged to increase support for liming as it will have double effects and will considerably improve matters. There is no doubt that the pH levels in rivers, for example, have fallen dramatically since the mid-1970s as a result of the loss of liming subsidies.
In the final analysis we must ask whether the measures will assist the economic viability of our farms. I believe that they will not do enough. They will help to improve conservation efforts as they will support pollution control—there must be more enforcement of such policies—but they will not increase the viability of farms. The Ministry must now work hard to ensure that the farmers and their families will still be living on their farms in 20 years' time. That is what the National Farmers Union was complaining about today.

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East): The measures are especially welcome as they signify a change in direction. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said that he was sad that they will do nothing to improve farm income. While I sympathise with that, it would be rather strange if, at the very time the Government are leading the fight in Europe to deal with agricultural surpluses, we produced a profligate scheme to give money to farmers to invest in their farm structures.
The measures are important because they concentrate on some of the priority areas. I welcome the grants for horticulture, especially those relevant to the bulb production industry, which is important in my constituency and throughout many parts of the Fenlands and East Anglia. It is not often recognised that the British bulb industry is far larger than the Dutch industry and that we export a large number of bulbs to Holland.
I also welcome the grant enhancement for young farmers contained in regulation 10. About 14 years ago I represented British young farmers in Brussels and I worked on what was then known as the draft young farmer directive. Even though neither "young" nor "farmer" applies to me any more, it is nice to see that that directive—even at this late stage—is beginning to see the light of day.
Regulation 10 also allows enhanced grant to partnerships. It does not apply to existing limited partnerships that were devised simply as a way round the outdated tenancy laws—they are an anachronism in our free society. The grant applies to the true partnerships that are known in Europe, particularly in France, and in some parts of the United Kingdom. Under those partnerships, individuals join their farms to improve the efficiency of the total unit.
The most important part of the measures relates to conservation. All hon. Members want to see considerable increases in conservation schemes throughout the countryside. As the population becomes more prosperous, and leisure and travel become available to more people, everyone wants to see the countryside of their dreams, the countryside that they have read about and believe to exist. Thus, these measures, alongside the farm woodland scheme that has already been referred to, are very welcome. They are particularly apposite at present because farm incomes have been diminishing and are continuing to

diminish substantially, and income has become a negative factor for many farmers. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) implied that.
We cannot expect farmers to invest large sums of money in totally non-productive investments, such as conservation, however desirable and admirable an investment it might be generally for all of us. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) said about capital value, conservation does not enhance farm incomes one iota. Therefore we must recognise that, if we want farmers to carry out conservation measures such as the creation of hedgerows, it can be done only with substantial grant encouragement from the Government. I welcome that very much.
As profits disappear, farmers will look increasingly to this sort of encouragement. This encouraging set of regulations reflects the changing times in agriculture, and I am very pleased to give it my support.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I suppose that we should be grateful for any financial assistance to farming during a period of financial stress and change, but I must express some disappointment at these measures, especially given the major problems confronting agriculture. The proposals will do nothing to assist Scottish farmers who face bankruptcy due to bad weather, poor yields, annual price reductions and appallingly high interest rates. The regulations are designed to tease out further investment by farmers, but farmers have every right to be wary.
During the 1970s, farmers were consistently encouraged to borrow relatively large sums to invest in their businesses and become more efficient. The level of today's interest rates shows just how misguided that policy turned out to be. But what is worse is the prospect of untold damage being done to Scotland's rural economy if the Government continue to ignore the financial crisis in farming.
Unemployment and rural depopulation will inevitably increase if farms go under. Therefore, instead of paying chickenfeed subsidies for minor improvements, as in this measure, the Government should deal with the cripplingly high interest rate burden.
This small measure must be seen in the context of a commercial situation where our European farming competitors in West Germany and the Netherlands pay interest at less than half the rate facing our farmers—6 per cent. as against 13 per cent. Instead of promoting minor EEC measures such as the regulations, the Government should be encouraging more relevant and appropriate EEC action for our agriculture.
Has the Minister really looked at the index of average net farm incomes produced by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland? The index shows that since 1978, farm income has dropped in real terms by more than 35 per cent. Average net farm incomes outwith the dairy sector are well below the average in other sectors, and there is no sign of improvement.
How, then, will these farm and conservation grant measures stem that tide? That is the question facing the Minister early this morning. In promoting the grant scheme, the Government clearly have no understanding of the main factors involved in the rural income multiplier. Agriculture expenditure is the mainstay of many more jobs in distribution and the ancillary sectors.
To take just one example, under the regulations the 40 and 50 per cent. grants that will be available for tree planting in enclosed areas of grazed woodlands will do very little to get rid of the massive surplus of nursery stocks. Yet these are the very producers that the Government were addressing in their farm woodland scheme. They were supposed to assist in taking surplus land out of production, and they have been actively encouraged to expand by the Government.
After substantial disruption caused by changes in the forestry taxation regime, the Government have refused point blank to meet the industry to discuss any form of compensation to meet the present problems. The so-called adjustment or market correction process used recently by various Ministers is a euphemism for Government-induced disaster. Why will not the Government face up to their responsibilities in that matter?
In a letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Horticultural Trades Association says:
when the Farm Woodlands Scheme was first being considered, representatives of the nursery industry met with the Ministry of Agriculture to give assurances that stock would be available to meet the expected uptake in this planting season. Having now produced the trees, we are faced with minimal uptake at present and little likelihood of applications under the scheme being processed and approved in time for this season's programme.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), a constituent says:
We in the nursery trade have been led up a path to the wilderness. The Farm Woodland Scheme appears to be a total or near-total fiasco. I understand that the paper work is so complicated that it is a disincentive to anyone who may be interested and even for the keen it takes many months to have all paper work processed. It is all very disturbing.
I regret that the Minister seems to have abandoned the Front Bench. I should have liked him to listen to the final sentence written on behalf of people who are dealing with the industry. It says:
There is no doubt in my mind but that the government haven't much of a clue as to the damage they are doing to our industry.
No wonder, when the Minister leaves the Front Bench to wander off to talk to other people. He should listen, perhaps even to his civil servants. It is in that context that the measures must be viewed and criticised. I welcome the Minister back.
On the credit side, the measure seeks to improve energy conservation in its proposal to supply wind or water pumps and generators, and investment in solar and other forms of energy saving. From an environmental angle I hope that the Government will consider giving at least 50 per cent. grants across the board for energy-saving devices instead of the paltry 15 and 25 per cent. proposed at present. That is inadequate for the task.
To ensure that the job is done properly greater incentives must surely be offered. For only a little investment substantial gains can be made in energy-saving devices, yet the proposal offers merely a token gesture in the direction of the long-term saving of energy costs which will be crucial to the industry's survival.
Similarly, the proposed field drainage and reseeding grants should be substantially increased, or an opportunity for reform will be lost. The measures are an opportunity missed and will be seen by the industry as no more than short-term palliatives which do not address the

real problems facing farmers in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom during a period of change and readjustment.
In short, I am disappointed with the package. It could have been so much better and I hope that the Minister will go back to Europe and argue the case better for the needs of our farmers.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We are running short of time so I shall be as quick as I can. First, I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing these suggestions into our legal system. I have a series of questions to put to him, which I shall fire one after the other and hope that he will have an opportunity to deal with them.
The first is a technical question. I am not at all clear why draft regulations from Europe and a statutory instrument should be laid before the House when both seem to cover almost entirely the same ground. As draft regulations from Europe go straight into our legal system without any need for ratification by the Government of the day, as I understand it, why do we need both? Why, apart from regulations 6 to 10, does the statutory instrument appear merely to parrot what the European regulations say? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain why we need to introduce legislation in that dual form under our new status as a full member of the European Community.
I wish also to make one or two points about some of the proposals in the two papers.
I see that the schedule 1(1)(c) of the draft regulations there is a distinction between the grants to be given in shelter belts of broad-leaved trees and other shelter belts, the former being given a 40 per cent. grant and the others only 15 per cent. While I appreciate that broad-leaved trees are much more attractive in the countryside than some of the other shelter belts, as a practical farmer I must point out that it is often much more to the advantage of the farm and the livestock shelter to plant a quicker-growing shelter belt than the rather more attractive broad-leaved one. In cereal areas, where there will clearly be a need for new shelter belts when the cereal farmer tries to diversify into other forms of farming, I hope that the Government will see the sense of giving a larger grant for quick-growing shelter belts to enable that transition to be made more effectively.
In schedule 1(2), the enclosure of areas of grazed woodland is expressly mentioned as qualifying for the 40 per cent. grant. I am not clear as to the distinction between grazed woodland and non-grazed woodland. Will this cover only woodlands which are being deliberately grazed at the moment, or will it cover woodlands into which the animals can get willy-nilly but from which fencing would enable the farmer to exclude them? I very much hope that it will be the latter. Otherwise the application of this provision will be extremely limited and therefore of very narrow value.
With regard to schedule 1(5), concerning reinstatement of vernacular buildings, I associate myself with what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said. I believe that he is right to seek a balance between restoring agricultural buildings in the proper, old-fashioned materials and enhancing the property developer's profit when the buildings are turned over to the use of yuppies in the south-east of England. That balance must obviously be


found. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he handled the debate. It is always refreshing when the Opposition can join the Government and welcome proposals. It is always nice for the Opposition to get congratulations from the Conservative Benches—they wonder what they have done wrong. The points that the hon. Gentleman made in criticism will also find some sympathy on this side of the House. We must work together to ensure that the draft regulations come into our law in the proper form and give the maximum benefit to our farming community.
The next point that I wish to raise in detail concerns schedule 1(9). I see that it is only in Scotland that the making, improving or alteration of banks or channels of watercourses will be eligible for grant. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why the less fortunate areas in the rest of the United Kingdom are excluded when parts of the north, of Wales and of Northern Ireland are at least as liable to damage from flooding as parts of Scotland. I welcome the provision for Scotland, but I hope that we can find ways of extending it to other parts of the country.
I have one rather important query about the draft regulations. The explanatory note to the document says, in sub-paragraph (f), that in addition to all the things that we have already discussed today regulation 18 will confer rights of entry. I was not aware that we were talking about conferring rights of entry at all today and I would view with considerable suspicion new rights of entry being brought into our laws of trespass by such means. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me that no radical changes will be made by these regulations from Europe to the way in which the laws of England operate in relation to rights of entry and ownership.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am sorry if the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) is alarmed by any aspect of the measures, which, as he pointed out, have been acknowledged by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House as being at least a half-step in the right direction. It is a matter of some joy whenever the Government produce intervention or direct assistance; we keep asking them to do so in respect of other industries. We should be thankful for small mercies, and that the Government are still prepared to invest in rural areas through agriculture.
It is important to recognise the direct impact that such an investment incentive has on the rural economy, because the money is not going into farmers' pockets but must be spent immediately on employing people to carry out works in the rural economy—which, given the new thrust that the Minister outlined, will be completed in an environmentally sensitive manner.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) concerning drainage. The old under-drainage systems in the principal arable areas of the country are collapsing or silting up considerably more rapidly than they are being replaced. Further incentives are important to ensure that Britain's arable land is kept in a reasonable state and fit for cultivation. I wonder whether the grants will go far enough.
As to the repair and reinstatement of vernacular buildings, will the Minister confirm that grants can be extended to cover adaptations? It is no use restoring a cart shed that was designed 100 years ago for use by horses and carts, when it is impossible to get modern equipment into it. I hope that that measure can be interpreted reasonably flexibly.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) put his finger on a relevant point when he said that pure conservation investment is, ipso facto, unlikely to create any increase in the farmer's income. Grant regulation 6(1) states:
An improvement plan shall not be approved under these Regulations unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that the investments to be made under the plan are justified from the point of view of the situation of the agricultural business and its economy and that completion of the plan will bring about a lasting and substantial improvement of that situation, and in particular of the income per labour unit reasonably required in the carrying on of the business.
I do not see how it is possible to square that circle. I fear that a certain amount of fiction may have to be written in preparing investment plans, to make programmes eligible for the scheme. Nevertheless, I hope that the measures work—but I wish that they were rather more generous.

Mr. Ryder: We have had, as I expected, a well-informed debate on the scheme, and I am grateful for the generally warm welcome that it received. Right hon. and hon. Members raised a host of specific points, to which I shall endeavour to respond. If I do not cover them all in the short time remaining to me, I shall write to the right hon. and hon. Members concerned.
The Government recognise the special difficulties of hill farming and the important part that it plays in the economy and environment of the areas in question. That is why we are retaining an LFA differential across the board, apart from waste treatment and traditional buildings. It is also why we are careful to retain grants that are particularly important in LFAs—especially those for reseeding, regeneration, liming and fertilising. We are also introducing some new grants for heather moors, native woodlands, and repairs to vernacular buildings that should prove particularly helpful in the uplands.
Farmers in LFAs have had the benefit of 60 per cent. grants for three years since 1985. Over that period, we have contributed a great deal to the cost of conserving the uplands environment. The greatest pollution problems are associated with dairy farms, which are concentrated in the lowlands. The prime concerns for environmentalists have been the removal and neglect of lowland hedgerows, to which I referred, so, in my view, it makes sense to shift the balance of support in the way that I described.
The regulations cannot be amended. The scheme will be put through the formal EC approval procedures after the United Kingdom Parliament has approved it. But, as I have said previously, I am always ready to take up the views of hon. Members to take them into account for future purposes. We have had extensive discussions with the European Commission, which has indicated informally that the scheme conforms with Community rules.
It is recognised that the United Kingdom is breaking new ground in Europe, and we have probably set a lead which others will wish to follow. We shall still need to submit the scheme through the formal clearance procedures, but we have been grateful for the informal


guidance that the Commission has been able to offer and for its confirmation that it conforms with the necessary regulations.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made an interesting speech. He was right to say that the scheme will be extended to Northern Ireland under a separate instrument. He asked whether there could be any help for farmers who had prepared but not submitted improvement plans. The closure regulation of necessity had to operate from a set date and it was inevitable that some would fall on the wrong side. We have accepted that where prior notification was required—as in, for example, national parks—notification can count as a plan submitted.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised the problem of pollution, and I, too, am concerned about that. I re-emphasise that our anti-pollution grants are running at about £50 million over three years, and I strongly support appropriate prosecutions against farmers causing pollution; legislation permits a maximum fine of £2,000 for each offence, plus clean-up costs.
The hon. Gentleman cast some doubt on the enclosure of native woodlands. There is a need for the new grant. Indeed, the RSPB pressed strongly for a fencing grant. The farm woodland scheme to which he referred is about planting trees for commercial timber production. The new grant that we have been discussing is about the better management of existing woodlands, irrespective of their value as timber.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I recognise the value of hedges as wildlife habitats and landscape features and their value for agricultural purposes, and I had discussions with the hon. Member for Wentworth as I said in a previous Question Time that I would.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) alluded to farm incomes. I remind him that the latest

economic forecasts show for the second year running an increase in incomes of livestock producers generally across less-favoured areas. Net farm incomes in the United Kingdom LFAs are forecast to be 7 per cent. higher in real terms in 1988–89, following an increase of 48 per cent. in 1987–88.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) asked about fencing to encourage the regeneration of heather moors and the possibility of reflective plates, and I shall consider that idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) spoke of the relationship between the regulations and the scheme. They are United Kingdom regulations; they are our detailed implementation of the more general rules in EC regulation 797/85. The scheme is similar because this is the other part of the farm and conservation grant scheme. He also questioned me about rights of entry. This is not a new right. It is a continuation of a right which was in the agriculture improvement scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster asked about the exclusion of livestock from grazed woodland. The grant will cover woods used as shelter for livestock or for grazing. There is no specific requirement that this use shall be at a particular level before the grant will be paid. It is open to the farmer to decide whether stock are inhibiting regrowth and therefore whether fencing is necessary—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 128), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Severn Bridge (Tolls)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Roy Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to raise again the issue of tolls on the Severn bridge. I note that the Minister for Roads and Traffic is to reply: I have nothing against him personally, but for me he is essentially the fall guy called upon to defend the indefensible. He is also essentially the voice of south-east England, with little understanding of the chronic problems of Wales.
The man who should be in the hot seat tonight is the Secretary of State for Wales. For the past 18 months or so he has been running around Wales telling us how marvellous he is, and of the miracles that he is performing. The truth, of course, is a little different. Two major collieries are scheduled for closure, Marine colliery in Ebbw Vale and Cynheidre in the Llanelli area. Last weekend we received the shattering news that the newly privatised British Steel was making over 1,000 people redundant. The Velindre steelworks at Swansea were to be closed completely; over 700 jobs would go there, and several hundred more in other steelworks in Wales.
The instant response from our Secretary of State was that we must attract new jobs, and one of the best ways of doing that is to get rid of tolls on the Severn bridge. The issue is vital to the future well-being of Wales: the bridge is our main access point in and out of Wales, and it is merely a short stretch of the M4.
Tolls are a major factor in hindering the economic development of Wales. This additional tax on our people is completely unjustified. For example, my constituents living in Caldicot will now have to earn more than £13 gross to pay £10 per week in toll charges when pursuing their employment on the other side of the channel. That is grossly unfair: it is a charge even before they get their cars out of the garage.
There are no tolls on the Avon bridge which serves nearby Bristol, our principal competitor in attracting new jobs. The old argument that vehicles could use other routes if they did not wish to use the Severn bridge is pretty ridiculous. Any significant increase in traffic in the Gloucester area now would cause chaos and a public outcry.
The Government tend to treat Wales as though it were the south-east of England, but our unemployment—even according to the official figures—is 9·5 per cent. I understand, however, that there have been no fewer than 24 changes in the method of compiling the statistics, and those changes have taken off the register many thousands of people perfectly capable of a normal day's work. Admittedly, the number of unemployed people has fallen in the past year or so, but we could ask who put it up in the first place. I feel that a little modesty in certain quarters would not go amiss. Even allowing for recent improvements, with the same method of compiling the statistics, unemployment is still roughly double what is was when Labour left office in 1979.
Unemployment is only one facet of our argument. Health problems in Wales compare unfavourably with just about any region. We have the highest proportion of pre-1918 housing and so many of those properties lack even basic amenities. I could say much more besides. It is

hardly the time for the Government to bring forward a proposal to double tolls on the Severn bridge, when logic demands that they should be abolished.
When we examine the finances of the bridge, the position becomes simply farcical. The total cost of building the Severn crossing, comprising the Severn bridge, the Wye bridge and viaduct and the approach roads with all ancillary equipment was £14,362,334. That figure includes £1,710,143 in respect of interest capitalised during construction. The bridge was opened in September 1966 by Her Majesty the Queen, since when, until 31 March 1988, £48,547,086 has been collected in tolls. The bridge was paid for originally out of the Consolidated Fund, so there was no bank loan, yet I am now told that the debt on the bridge was £85,469,667 at 31 March 1988. All those statistics are from very recent parliamentary answers. The basic figures are the cost of construction at about £14 million, the tolls collected at more than £48 million, and the debt of £85 million.
It has to be recognised that those figures are nearly 12 months out of date. To add insult to injury, I am told that the debt on the bridge will be finally discharged in 2006, if the Government's proposal to double the toll charges is carried through. In other words there are to be 40 years of a superimposed Government tax on a depressed region.
The Government have the cheek to blame the Labour Government. The Thatcher Administration has been in office for nearly 10 years, with a large majority throughout. The Labour party was elected at the end of 1964 with a wafer-thin majority. The legislation for the Severn bridge had already been prepared by the late Mr. Ernest Marples, the then Minister for Transport. Welsh Labour Members had earlier tended to dissociate themselves from the crossing project because of the imposition of tolls. Also, when Labour was in power, unemployment was minimal compared with what it has been in recent years—so the need to remove tolls was not so urgent.
Still, the principle of a toll-free bridge has always been relevant. In bygone years, our Welsh ancestors fought bitterly over a similar principle, and their fight was symbolised by the famous Rebecca riots.
In a letter to me dated 9 February, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
the main demand is to proceed as quickly as possible with the building of a second crossing".
He went on:
This we will do.
Yet the response of the Department of Transport has been ringed about with ifs, buts and maybes. It has repeatedly stated that a second crossing will be provided if traffic needs justify it and Parliament decides to build it.
Now there are weird Government plans for a privately funded project. The £200 million estimated cost would be attractive to a private developer only if tolls were sky-high. What if tolls on the new crossing are significantly higher than on the present bridge? Motorists would tend not to use the new private crossing. That provides us with a clue to the reason for the proposal to double charges on the existing bridge—to make the whole proposition more attractive to private capital. That is a cynical exercise on the part of the Government.
What is the state of the bridge? In an Adjournment debate a few years ago, I revealed the contents of a report that until then had been secret and which had been written by an internationally renowned firm of consulting


engineers on the state of the bridge. It painted a frightful picture. Subsequently, the Government announced that £33 million was to be spent on strengthening and maintenance work. The Minister told me in a parliamentary written answer on 31 January that £38·9 million had already been spent, and that the estimate for the whole works is now £70 million. Those figures do not say much for the forecasting or technical expertise of the Department.
Meanwhile we suffer perpetual hold-ups and lane closures, the costs of which to the economy of Wales must be astronomical. A few years ago, the situation was summed up by Mrs. Shelagh Salter, then the chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council. She said:
We have been paying tolls every day but if the Sale of Goods Act applied to the Severn bridge we would be entitled to get our money back … It is neither fit for the purpose, nor of merchantable quality.
The public would certainly endorse those remarks.
Surely my request tonight is a reasonable one. Why cannot Wales, with all its economic and social problems, have a decent, toll-free crossing at its main access point? The motorist is contributing hand over fist in taxes between £16 million and £17 million in the current year, I understand. Less than a quarter of this will actually be spent on roads and maintenance. The Treasury, in this run-up period to the Budget, is awash with money. In February 1986, we had the report of the Select Committee on Transport. It called for the abolition of toll charges on estuarial crossings and set out clearly and simply how this could be brought about.
Vast sums of money have been written off by this Government in pursuit of and to facilitate their privatisation ventures. By comparison, the amount involved in writing off the debt on the Severn bridge is simply peanuts, but such a decision on the part of the Government would be a tremendous psychological boost to Wales, and soon the economic benefits would be self-evident.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on making an extempore speech and for so nearly sticking to half the time available for this debate. I also recognise that he has raised this issue on many occasions. Perhaps I could also acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir J. Stradling Thomas), who takes a keen interest, and I think has been acknowledged to do so, whether or not he has been in a position to speak.
I make it plain that the convention in Adjournment debates is that the hon. Member who is fortunate enough to be chosen in the ballot can speak, but I recognise my hon. Friend's interest, and also that of the hon. Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and, just in case there are toll bridges to come in Wells, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
The totally unjustified attack by the hon. Member for Newport, East on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales makes it appear that the hon. Member believes that my right hon. Friend is a Labour Member and therefore the normal courtesies of the Labour party can be extended to him. I point out that he is actually a Conservative and he should be treated with courtesy.
The Severn bridge was opened and the tolls imposed when the Labour party was in government. The legislation governing the Secretary of State's power to levy tolls is the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965; that is a point which my hon. Friend for Monmouth would have made.
Section 1 gives the Secretary of State power to levy tolls subject to, and in accordance with, the other provisions of the Act. Sections 2 and 19 provide that he may make orders setting out toll levels for classes of vehicles. Section 3 prescribes the procedure for making orders. In particular, subsection (3) sets out the circumstances in which an inquiry is required. In the present case an inquiry is necessary because one has been demanded by several local authorities and representative objectors.
We must keep toll rates in perspective. When the bridge opened in September 1966 the toll paid by cars was 2s. 6d. That is not quite, but almost, equivalent to the £1 now proposed for cars. We must not forget that there have been only two increases in tolls since the bridge opened, one in 1979 and the other in 1985. The increase now proposed is in line with the Government's intentions to bring to an end the spiral of rising debt on the Severn bridge. Without an increase, debt would rise to abut £400 million by the end of the tolling period in the year 2006. That would be wholly unacceptable. The proposals are designed to enable all debts to be repaid over the period of 40 years that was envisaged by the Labour Government who enacted the legislation in 1965.
This is a rather inopportune moment for the hon Member for Newport, East to raise the question of tolls on the Severn bridge. As he well knows, a public inquiry into the proposed toll increase starts next Tuesday, 21 February. The House will appreciate that I cannot speculate about the results of the inquiry. To do so would prejudice the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who must determine the outcome of the inquiry, having considered the report of the independent inspector and all the evidence put before him. I intend, therefore, to be careful about my remarks.
On a personal basis, may I say that if we had a Labour Government and if there were many talented Welsh Labour Members of Parliament, with the hon. Member for Newport, East being appointed a Minister with responsibility for issues affecting London, I do not think that I should insult him by making remarks of the kind that he made about me and Wales. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in 1968 I was in industrial relations with the Steel Corporation and was concerned with the R, T and B works—and, for that matter with Velindre as well.
I ought also to say that I go to Wales as often as I can to see the Severn bridge and to keep in contact with the police services in Wales that have done much by leading the battles for road casualty reductions. On both the economic and life-saving factors that affect Wales I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who can speak with such fluency about them, but it might be a courtesy and a kindness if he were to acknowledge that we live in the united kingdom and that there are many Welsh people who have an interest in England and that there are many English people who have an interest in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman has received and no doubt read the Department's published statement of reasons for the forthcoming inquiry. Copies have been placed in the Library. We have outlined the Government's policy


towards tolling estuarial crossings, the legislation under which the toll increase is proposed, the history of tolling on the bridge and the justification for the proposed increase.
At the pre-inquiry meeting on 17 January, which the hon. Gentleman did not attend, the inspector made it clear that although he would report to the Secretary of State any views expressed at the inquiry, it would not be for him to make recommendations that related to the merits of Government policy. We can now look at that policy and at how little it has changed over the years, including the years when the Labour party formed the Government. It should enable the hon. Gentleman to resist the temptation to make too much of the matter at the public inquiry.
This Government's policy towards the tolling of estuarial crossings was set out in a memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport to the Select Committee on Transport in April 1985. The memorandum noted:
Over the past 30 years successive governments have justified the policy of charging tolls on major estuarial crossings on the grounds of the high cost of provision and the exceptional benefits to users conferred by large reductions in journey lengths and times except where tolls would cause substantial diversion of traffic to alternative, untolled routes.
Section 4 of the 1965 Act provides for a toll period of 40 years, with the possibility of extensions for periods of five years. It also sets limits on the tolls that may be levied. In particular, subsection (2) says:
In the exercise of his powers under section 2 of this Act the Secretary of State shall not specify scales of tolls exceeding those which in his opinion would be requisite to ensure that, taking one year with another, the revenue produced by the tolls during the toll period, if applied for the purposes mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act, would be sufficient, but not more than sufficient, for those purposes.
Schedule 2 specifies the purposes to which toll revenue may be applied. These include the repayment, with interest, of the construction cost of the bridge and of any additions or improvements carried out during the toll period. It further provides for the defrayment of all expenditure incurred during the toll period on the operation, maintenance, repair or renewal of the bridge and the provision for defrayment after the end of the toll period of likely expenditure on the maintenance, repair or renewal of the bridge.
The bridge was built from national funds, but in order to set a limit on the power to levy tolls the 1965 Act introduced the concept of users paying for it as if the bridge had been built by means of a loan. On 1 December 1964, during the debate on the Ways and Means resolution on the Severn bridge, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. MacDermot, said:
the intention is that tolls should cover amortisation of the capital cost over a period of 30 to 40 years, with interest, and also the maintenance costs of the bridge and the cost of collection."—[Official Report, 1 December 1964; Vol 703, c. 413.]
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interests in this matter. I note that the Welsh Nationalists do not appear to be here, nor do the Social and Liberal Democrats, and I am not certain that we have maintained the interest of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. But perhaps I should let that pass.
It has since been the objective of successive Secretaries of State that, so far as reasonably possible, the toll levels should be such that revenue will be sufficient to meet, over

a 40-year period, the expenses set out in schedule 2. In practice, the toll levels set in the past have proved insufficient to meet that objective.
It is quite clear that successive Governments since the war have pursued a consistent policy in relation to the tolling of estuarial crossings, including the Severn bridge. There are those who will argue that nothing should ever be tolled and that tolls are inappropriate on trunk roads and motorway crossings. These views were expressed by the Transport Committee in 1986 in its report on tolled crossings. The hon. Member is clearly in sympathy with them.
The Government's policy is quite clear. We said in our response to the second report of the Transport Committee:
The Government does not accept the Select Committee's view that tolls are inappropriate on trunk road and motorway crossings. The provision of adequate estuarial crossings is a costly matter; where they offer a substantial time and cost saving to users, like the Severn Bridge and the Dartford Tunnels, the Government considers it appropriate for users to contribute directly to the cost through tolls.
The Government is also unable to accept that it should write off or discharge the debts of tolled crossings. It does not regard tolls as unfair, and it takes the view that there are more pressing demands on its resources.
We said that we were willing to consider reasoned argument for special treatment in particular cases. We did not accept that the write-off or discharge of all debt was justified.
In that response to the Select Committee's report the Government made it clear that they considered the Humber bridge to be a special case. We are currently considering a report by the inspector into proposals by the Humber Bridge Board for a toll increase. When that has been decided by the Secretary of State we shall consider the carefully reasoned case submitted by the Humber Bridge Board for writing off a proportion of that bridge's debts which cannot be met from tolls or other sources of revenue available to it under the Humber Bridge Act. As we said in our response to the Transport Committee, most crossings should prove to be viable under prudent financial management. That would certainly seem to be true of the Severn bridge.
Directly after the 1979 toll increase the annual deficit, which reflected the system of amortisation or capitalising the debts of the Severn bridge, fell. From 1980–81 onward, toll revenue has been insufficient to cover operating costs, and debts therefore continued to grow. It was clear that a further toll increase was required, especially in view of the need to provide for a substantial part of the cost of repair and strengthening works required on the bridge.
In successive reports on the Severn bridge account the Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention to the accumulating deficiencies on the account, having regard to the objective of recovering the total deficit over 40 years after the opening of the bridge. The debt to the Consolidated Fund had reached £46 million at 31 March 1984, and then increased by £10 million in each of the succeeding two years, to bring the total to over £65 million at March 1986. This figure had increased to nearly £77 million at March 1987, and to £85 million at March 1988.
Our current proposals for a toll increase have been embodied in a draft Severn Bridge Tolls Order, which, if made, will revoke the current order of 1985. The draft order proposes an increase in tolls for cars from 50p to £1, and for buses, coaches and goods vehicles having an unladen weight in excess of 1·525 tonnes an increase in tolls from £1 to £2.
I should say something about the second Severn bridge. On 28 July 1988 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the next step in the provision of this crossing, so we will be in a position to provide the bridge by the mid-1990s, if the traffic justifies it. We are well up to programme and hope shortly to announce a shortlist of companies who will be invited to tender. The construction of this second crossing will require new legislation. It has not been taken into account in considering the need for a tolls increase on the existing bridge.
The House will probably be grateful to the hon. Member for allowing some of these points to be made, but

he will understand that I have not spoken with quite my normal articulation—though. I am not sure that "articulation" is the word for a Transport Minister. I repeat that I welcome the fact that the hon. Member instigated the debate. He may have been outnumbered three to one—leaving aside yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—by the Conservatives who are interested in the subject. I think we should look forward to the inquiry and to the results that will follow from it when the Secretary of State has been able to consider the inspector's report.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past One o'clock.